Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is to 'unmap,' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if this affects data integrity), or response behavior. More context on what 'unmap' entails operationally would be helpful.

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 a structured 'Args' section. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the parameter descriptions could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and deeper parameter semantics, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly identifies each parameter (e.g., 'project_id: The project's numeric ID'), adding basic meaning. However, it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how cip_id relates to project_id) or provide examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Unmap') and target ('a pin from a component in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'map_component_pin' beyond the opposite action, missing an opportunity for clearer sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The description doesn't mention its sibling 'map_component_pin' for context, nor does it indicate what conditions must be met before unmapping (e.g., the pin must already be mapped).

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