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 disclosure burden. It adds the '[mutation]' indicator and explains the post-creation dashboard workflow for file uploads. However, it fails to disclose return value structure (e.g., assistant ID), error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or idempotency properties critical for a creation tool.

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 sentences: a title-like prefix, the core creation statement, and the post-creation workflow note. It is appropriately front-loaded. The '[mutation]' tag is slightly redundant given the 'create' operation type but does not significantly detract from conciseness.

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's complexity (12 parameters including nested config objects) and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the creation intent and next steps (file upload) but omits the return value specification—particularly the assistant ID needed for subsequent operations—which is a significant gap for a complex creation tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed parameter documentation (including conditional logic for language_fixed). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with comprehensive schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic load.

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 core action with 'Crea un nuevo asistente de documentacion' (Creates a new documentation assistant), providing specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_docqa_assistant by emphasizing creation of a 'nuevo' (new) assistant, though it could explicitly contrast with update/delete operations for clearer selection.

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 sequential workflow guidance ('Despues de crearlo, podras subir archivos... desde el dashboard'), indicating file uploads happen post-creation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like update_docqa_assistant for existing assistants, or prerequisites for creation.

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