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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the counting function but fails to disclose whether this is read-only (implied by 'count' but not explicit), what data format it returns (integer? object?), performance characteristics, or rate limits. The trailing '[query]' tag hints at read-only behavior but is too cryptic to provide clear transparency.

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 uses an efficient two-part structure with an action headline and detailed explanation. It is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity. The only structural weakness is the unexplained '[query]' tag at the end, which appears to be metadata but serves no clear descriptive purpose in the 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, for a counting operation, it omits important context such as the return value format (scalar count vs wrapped object), error handling for invalid list_ids, or whether the count is real-time or cached.

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 maps closely to the schema by listing the specific filter types (tags, actividad reciente, historial WhatsApp) mentioned in the segment_filters parameter description. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, primarily framing these as 'segmentation filters' rather than just filters, but does not provide examples, constraints, or format details beyond what's in the schema.

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 specific action ('Contar contactos filtrados por segmento' / Count filtered contacts by segment) and identifies the resource (contacts from a list). It distinguishes from siblings like list_contact_lists (which lists contact lists, not counts contacts) or get_contact_list_detail (which retrieves list metadata) by explicitly focusing on filtered counting with segmentation criteria.

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 by specifying the exact filtering capabilities (tags, recent activity, WhatsApp history), suggesting when to use this tool for segmented counting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or direct comparisons to alternatives like get_contact_list_detail that might also return counts but without complex segmentation filters.

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