WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. The '[mutation]' tag indicates a write operation, but the description omits return values (created service ID? full object?), idempotency, error conditions (duplicate names?), and side effects on existing calendar data.

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?

Well-structured with em-dash separating title from description. The '[mutation]' tag efficiently signals write behavior given missing annotations. Examples are parenthetical and relevant. Slightly dense but no wasted words.

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 10 parameters including complex business logic fields (price, currency, max_concurrent, buffers) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return structure, validation constraints between fields, or success indicators necessary for proper agent invocation.

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 provides conceptual examples (30min/60min) that clarify the domain model but does not add parameter-specific semantics, validation rules (e.g., price requiring currency), or syntax constraints beyond 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 it creates a calendar service/appointment type (tipo de cita/servicio) with specific examples (30min consultation, 60min meeting). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like create_calendar_event by specifying this creates service templates, not actual appointments.

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?

While the examples (consulta 30min, reunion 60min) provide implicit guidance on use cases, the description lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like create_calendar_event or update_calendar_service. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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