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. While the '[mutation]' tag indicates a write operation, the description lacks critical details about side effects (notifications sent, conflict handling), idempotency, or failure modes that agents need to handle mutation tools safely.

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 concise and front-loaded, leading with the action 'Crear evento' immediately. It efficiently combines purpose and mutation indication in a single sentence without redundant filler, though it may be overly brief given the parameter complexity.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to address the return value (success/failure indicators), explain the presence of filtering-like parameters (date_from/date_to), or document behavior regarding duplicate events or calendar conflicts.

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 82%, establishing a baseline where the schema does most of the work. However, the description fails to clarify semantically confusing parameters like event_id (unusual for a create operation) and date_from/date_to (which resemble filters rather than creation attributes), leaving ambiguity about their purpose in this context.

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 creates/schedules a new event or appointment ('Crear evento — Agenda un nuevo evento o cita'), using specific verbs and identifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_calendar_event and delete_calendar_event by emphasizing 'nuevo' (new).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_calendar_event, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., existing calendar requirements) or when not to use it. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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