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. It explicitly tags '[mutation]' and clearly discloses the merge behavior for JSON fields ('se mergean automaticamente'), which is critical for understanding this is not a destructive replace operation.

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?

Three components: title repetition (minor waste), partial update explanation, and JSON merge explanation. Efficiently structured with the mutation tag clearly appended. Slight front-loading issue but overall high information density.

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 19-parameter configuration tool with nested objects, the description successfully conveys the critical partial-update semantics and merge behavior necessary for safe usage. No output schema exists, so return value explanation is not expected.

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 coverage is 95%, establishing baseline 3. The description adds valuable semantic context about how the nested object parameters (config_design, config_texts, config_behavior) behave during updates (merging vs replacing), which is essential for correct invocation.

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?

States specific action ('Configura el widget de chat web') and resource, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'configure_plugin_productqa' or 'configure_ecommerce_locales'. Minor deduction for starting with tautology ('Configurar plugin Chat —').

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?

Explains HOW to use the tool (partial updates, sending only fields to change) but lacks explicit WHEN to use it versus alternatives like 'list_plugin_configs' or 'get_plugin_chat_sessions'. The partial update guidance provides implicit usage context.

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