WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it identifies the operation as a mutation ('[mutation]') and dangerous action, explains the confirmation token mechanism, warns that calling twice invalidates the token, and describes automatic UI behaviors ('Los botones aparecen automaticamente').

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence serves a critical safety or procedural function for this destructive operation. Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, mandatory warnings in caps (OBLIGATORIO, NUNCA), and clear numbered steps for the confirmation flow. Length is justified by the high-stakes nature of bulk deletion.

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 complex destructive operation with a multi-step confirmation protocol and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers the interaction pattern, expected intermediate responses (success=false), and final execution requirements. Provides sufficient context for safe agent operation despite missing output schema.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% with clear Spanish descriptions, the description adds crucial workflow context: workflow_ids must come from list_whatsapp_workflows with user confirmation of exact names, and confirm=true is required only after the initial call returns the confirmation request. This explains the two-phase interaction pattern not evident in the schema alone.

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 explicitly states it deletes multiple WhatsApp workflows at once ('Elimina multiples workflows de WhatsApp a vez'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the singular sibling 'delete_whatsapp_workflows' by emphasizing bulk deletion and referencing 'list_whatsapp_workflows' for obtaining multiple IDs.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('Antes de llamar, usa list_whatsapp_workflows'), strict prohibitions ('NUNCA eliminar workflows sin confirmacion explicita'), and handles ambiguous user intents like 'limpieza maxima' by requiring explicit listing first. Details the exact two-step confirmation flow including the specific response pattern (success=false with requires_confirmation=true).

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