WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the '[mutation]' marker to indicate a write operation, but fails to disclose idempotency behavior, return values, side effects, or explain why search-related parameters (query, limit) and merge-related parameters (primary_phone, secondary_phone) are present in the schema.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action ('Anadir tag a cliente'). However, given the complexity of 9 parameters with potentially overlapping purposes, the extreme brevity leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 tool with 9 parameters including seemingly unrelated search (query, limit) and merge (primary_phone, secondary_phone) fields, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the parameter interactions or why these fields exist alongside the required phone/tag_name pair, leaving the agent without context for proper invocation.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining the relationship between phone/query parameters or the merge context), but it meets the minimum threshold given the schema's completeness.

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 it adds a tag to a client for classification purposes using the verb 'Anade' (Add). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_customer_tags' or 'remove_customer_tag', though the '[mutation]' marker helps indicate its write nature.

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 'auto_tag_customer' or 'update_customer_tags'. It also fails to mention prerequisites or conditions under which this operation should be preferred.

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