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 includes the '[mutation]' tag indicating a write operation, but lacks details on reversibility (despite the existence of sibling 'remove_from_blacklist'), validation behavior, or error handling that would be necessary for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 uses an efficient em-dash structure with a headline summary followed by elaboration. While slightly redundant in verb repetition ('Añadir... — Añade...'), both phrases serve distinct purposes (label vs. action description) and the '[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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core function but omits operational context such as whether duplicate phones are handled idempotently, the optional nature of the 'reason' field, or references to related reversal tools.

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%, with both 'phones' and 'reason' well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add additional semantic context such as phone number format standards (E.164), examples, or validation constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline 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 tool adds multiple phone numbers to a mass marketing blacklist, using specific verbs ('Añadir', 'Añade') and distinguishing itself from the singular sibling tool 'add_to_blacklist' through explicit emphasis on 'múltiples' (multiple) and 'de una vez' (at once).

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 implies bulk usage through wording like 'varios números' (several numbers), it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the singular 'add_to_blacklist' or provide prerequisites/constraints for the operation.

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