zabbix_consultar_auditoria_mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails. 'Consultar' implies a read, but nothing is said about retention window, where the history is stored, whether it covers the current session only, or whether entries can be cleared. With no annotation coverage these gaps matter.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It would score higher without the leading '99.' enumeration artifact, which wastes attention and suggests the description is a copied list item.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape is covered, but the two undocumented parameters and the total absence of behavioral context (retention, scope, storage) leave an agent under-informed for anything beyond a default no-argument call.

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?

Two parameters (limite, apenas_erros) with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. An agent must guess that limite bounds result count and that apenas_erros filters to failed calls; neither semantic is stated anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: consult the local history of MCP tool calls and commands. The qualifier 'local' usefully distinguishes it from the Zabbix-side audit sibling zabbix_consultar_auditoria, though that sibling is never named explicitly. The '99.' numeric prefix is noise that adds nothing.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to see what MCP tools were invoked previously. There is no explicit 'use when' framing and no instruction about how it differs in practice from zabbix_consultar_auditoria, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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