Aedifion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool triggers an instance to run, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, side effects (e.g., if it overrides schedules), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary words, but the parameter section could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., effects, errors), output details, and deeper parameter guidance. Given the complexity implied by siblings like 'get_analytics_instance_result', more completeness is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by naming the parameters ('instance_id', 'project_id') and stating they are IDs, but doesn't explain their format, sourcing, or relationship (e.g., that the instance belongs to the project). This partially compensates but leaves gaps, warranting a baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('manually trigger') and resource ('analytics instance to run'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_analytics_instance' or 'get_analytics_instance_status' by focusing on execution rather than creation or status checking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'enable_analytics_instance', which might be a related operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enable_analytics_instance' or 'get_analytics_instance_status'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the instance must be enabled or configured) or typical scenarios for manual triggering, leaving the agent without usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.