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 adds valuable context that the tool 'shows the associated customer data' (indicating return value), but lacks details on read-only safety, error handling when no note exists, or side effects.

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 appropriately sized with clear front-loading: the em-dash structure separates the action label from the detailed explanation efficiently. Minor deduction for the trailing '[query]' tag which appears to be metadata rather than descriptive content.

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 tool without output schema, the description adequately explains the core function and mentions the customer data return. However, it lacks completeness regarding edge cases (e.g., behavior when no note exists) and does not describe the structure of the returned customer data.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'session_id' parameter ('ID de la sesion de chat del plugin'). The description references 'una sesion de chat del plugin' which aligns with the schema, but adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint 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 the tool checks/verifies (specific verb) the existence of a plugin conversation note (specific resource) and displays associated customer data. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'save_plugin_conversation_note' by emphasizing verification of existing notes rather than creation.

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 explains what the tool does (checks existence and shows customer data) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_plugin_conversation_detail' or 'save_plugin_conversation_note'. Usage is implied but not stated.

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