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. It successfully discloses the state change (to draft) and non-destructive nature, and includes a [mutation] tag indicating it's a write operation. However, it omits other behavioral traits like idempotency, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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 efficiently structured with a title-like prefix, core action, state change clarification, and non-deletion warning. The [mutation] tag is slightly informal but functional given the lack of annotations. No wasted words, though the em-dash structure is slightly redundant with the title field being null.

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 single-parameter mutation tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contract (state transition to draft, preservation of data). It could be improved by explicitly contrasting with `cancel_campaign` to prevent selection errors, but it is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (campaign_id is fully described in the schema). The description reinforces that this targets scheduled campaigns but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or semantic meaning 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 uses specific verbs ('Cancela la programacion') and clearly identifies the resource (a scheduled campaign). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it targets 'campana programada' (scheduled campaigns) and changes status to 'borrador' (draft), differentiating it from `cancel_campaign` (likely for active campaigns) and `delete_campaign`.

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 clarifies what the tool does NOT do ('No elimina la campana'), helping avoid confusion with deletion tools. It implies usage context via 'programada' (scheduled). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling `cancel_campaign` (e.g., 'use this for future scheduled campaigns, use cancel_campaign for active ones').

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