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. It includes a '[mutation]' tag indicating a write operation and explains the business logic effect (blocks marketing campaigns). However, it omits reversibility notes, permission requirements, or whether this affects existing scheduled campaigns.

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 efficiently structured in two clauses: the action (add to blacklist) and the consequence (blocks marketing). It is appropriately front-loaded and free of fluff, though the em-dash separation slightly reduces structural clarity.

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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects) and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it does and its business impact. It could mention reversibility via 'remove_from_blacklist' but is otherwise complete for its scope.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (phone format with example, reason constraints), so the schema itself provides complete parameter documentation. The description does not add additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific action (add/block) and resource (phone number/blacklist) using specific verbs. The singular form 'telefono' and 'un numero' distinguishes this from the sibling 'bulk_add_to_blacklist', and it specifies the business outcome (preventing mass marketing campaigns).

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?

While the description explains the effect (blocking marketing campaigns), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this single-add tool versus the 'bulk_add_to_blacklist' alternative, or any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the singular parameter schema.

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