WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation nature ('[mutation]'), the confirmation requirement ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'), and the interactive confirmation flow ('el sistema pedira confirmacion con botones'). However, it lacks clarity on whether this performs a full replacement of webhook settings or a partial patch update when only some parameters are provided.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, prerequisite workflow, execution conditions, and post-call warnings. Every sentence provides necessary guidance for safe operation. Slightly verbose due to the safety warnings, but no redundant 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with a confirmation flow and no output schema, the description adequately covers the critical workflow (prerequisite read, confirmation mechanism, mutation flag). Minor gap regarding the update semantics (replacement vs. merge) and no description of what successful execution returns, though the latter is mitigated by the absence of an output schema.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly mentioning specific parameters in context ('URL, eventos, etc'), explaining the purpose of the confirm parameter in the workflow ('para ejecutar esta acción peligrosa'), and clarifying what concrete data is required before calling.

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 modifies webhook configuration ('Modifica la configuracion de webhooks') using a specific verb+resource combination. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_webhook_config' by explicitly contrasting the read operation (get) with this write operation (configure/modifica).

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?

Provides explicit workflow prerequisites ('Antes de llamar... llama SIEMPRE a get_webhook_config'), clear conditions for invocation ('Solo llama esta accion cuando tengas los datos concretos'), and post-call behavior warnings ('NO vuelvas a llamar a esta accion'). Names the specific alternative tool to use instead.

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