WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only behavioral hint is the '[mutation]' tag indicating a write operation. Missing disclosure on idempotency behavior (whether calling twice updates or errors), conflict resolution for existing assignments, or specific error conditions.

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?

Brief two-part structure using em-dash separator. Front-loaded with action intent. Slightly repetitive between prefix 'Asignar agente...' and clause 'Asigna un agente...' but otherwise efficient. '[mutation]' tag is appropriately placed at the end.

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?

No output schema exists and no annotations provided. Description fails to indicate return values, success indicators, or side effects beyond identifying it as a mutation. For a permission/assignment mutation, should clarify whether it creates new assignments or can modify existing ones.

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 clear parameter documentation including role enum values (owner, can_book, view_only). Description mentions 'con un rol especifico' which reinforces the role parameter's importance but adds no syntax details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 assigns an agent to a calendar with a specific role using the verb 'Asigna'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'unassign_calendar_agent' and 'list_calendar_agents' by emphasizing the role-based assignment aspect, though it could clarify what 'agent' refers to in this domain.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'unassign_calendar_agent' or whether it serves to update existing assignments versus create new ones. No mention of prerequisites such as existing calendar/agent validation requirements.

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