WAzion 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. It explicitly labels itself as '[mutation]' and discloses the functional impact on the contact (exclusion from automatic messaging). It does not mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the mutation flag is clearly stated.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action. The '[mutation]' tag is efficiently appended. The Spanish language is appropriate given the parameter descriptions are also in Spanish. Minor inefficiency in the em-dash repetition ('Anadir... — Anade...').

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 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the business logic (opt-out mechanism), mutation nature, and intended effect. It could be improved by mentioning the existence of remove_whatsapp_optout for undo operations, but it is sufficiently complete for 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with 'phone' and 'reason' well-documented in Spanish. The description mentions adding 'un numero' which loosely references the phone parameter, but does not add semantic details, format examples, or usage guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 (adding to opt-out list), the resource (WhatsApp contact/number), and the exact consequence (won't receive automatic messages). The verb 'Anadir' distinguishes this from siblings like remove_whatsapp_optout or check_whatsapp_optout.

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 explains the effect of opt-out (blocking automatic messages), providing implicit context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or direct references to alternatives like remove_whatsapp_optout for reversibility.

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