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 discloses the mutation nature ('[mutation]'), the safety-critical confirmation requirement ('requiere confirmación'), and the post-connection capability ('para buscar productos, pedidos y clientes'). It omits details about connection persistence, credential validation behavior, or conflict resolution with existing connections.

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 three components: purpose statement with supported platforms, user interaction instruction, and mutation/confirmation metadata. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler, appropriate for a complex 13-parameter tool.

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 the complexity of handling four different authentication schemes across 13 parameters without an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks guidance on platform-specific parameter dependencies (which fields are required for which platform) and does not describe error states or return values. A note indicating that credentials are platform-specific would improve completeness.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though it emphasizes the execution dependency on confirm=true. The platform-specific conditional requirements (e.g., shopify_token vs wc_consumer_key) are documented only in schema parameter descriptions, not the main description.

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 connects an e-commerce platform (listing all four supported platforms: Shopify, WooCommerce, PrestaShop, VTEX) to enable searching products, orders, and customers. The specific verb 'Conectar' and resource 'plataforma e-commerce' provide precise scope, distinguishing it from siblings like disconnect_ecommerce or search_products.

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 provides explicit usage instructions: 'Pregunta al usuario que plataforma usa' (ask user which platform) and specifies the confirmation requirement ('pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this versus alternatives like test_ecommerce_connection or disconnect_ecommerce.

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