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. The '[mutation]' tag indicates a write operation, but the description lacks critical details: it does not explain what happens when disabling (is_enabled=false), whether changes are reversible, side effects on existing FAQs, or validation constraints for allowed_domains.

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 as a single, front-loaded sentence. Every element serves a purpose: the em-dash separates the action ('Configurar') from the specific functionality ('Activa y configura'), and '[mutation]' compensates for missing annotations. No redundant or wasted text.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks context on relationships with sibling Product Q&A tools (get_product_qa_questions, publish_question_as_faq), does not explain the widget's behavior or lifecycle, and omits expected outcomes or error conditions.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the schema adequately documents parameters (e.g., 'true para activar el plugin', 'Dominios donde funcionara el widget'). The description mentions activation and configuration generally but does not add syntax details, format examples, or semantic constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score applies.

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 configures and activates the Product Q&A widget ('Configurar plugin Product Q&A — Activa y configura el widget de preguntas sobre productos'). It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource, implicitly distinguishing it from siblings like configure_plugin_chat by specifying 'Product Q&A'. However, it does not explicitly reference siblings to highlight the differentiation.

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 implies usage through 'Activa y configura' (Activate and configure), suggesting use when enabling the widget. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_product_qa_stats or manage_faq, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions for configuration.

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