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 of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the '[mutation]' label but fails to disclose critical bulk-operation behaviors: atomicity (all-or-nothing vs partial success), error handling for invalid workflow IDs, side effects on running workflow instances, or idempotency guarantees.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action. However, it contains slight redundancy between 'Activar/desactivar workflows en lote' and 'Activa o desactiva multiples workflows a la vez,' which both convey the same bulk toggle meaning. Despite this, it remains efficiently structured.

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?

As a bulk mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should disclose execution behavior (e.g., whether it returns per-ID results or global status). It lacks this operational context, leaving agents uncertain about result interpretation and error handling for batch operations.

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 ('Array de IDs de workflows', 'true para activar, false para desactivar'). The description reinforces the toggle semantics but adds no additional constraints, validation rules, or format examples beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 activates or deactivates workflows in bulk ('Activar/desactivar workflows en lote'), using specific verbs and distinguishing from siblings like 'toggle_whatsapp_workflow' (singular) and 'bulk_delete_workflows' (different action). The '[mutation]' tag further clarifies the operation type.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this bulk tool versus individual toggles like 'toggle_whatsapp_workflow' or 'toggle_analytics', nor are prerequisites (e.g., workflow states that permit toggling) mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not when to prefer it over alternatives.

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