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 includes the [mutation] tag indicating state change, but lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., whether original client records are modified), error conditions (duplicate list names), or rate limiting behavior.

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?

Single sentence structure with front-loaded action. The em-dash format creates slight redundancy (repeating 'crear lista' concept), but overall efficient. The [mutation] tag is appropriately appended without cluttering the prose.

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 a creation tool with no output schema, the description omits what constitutes successful execution (returned list ID, confirmation object, etc.). While the core operation is explained, behavioral completeness regarding edge cases (zero inactive clients found) is absent.

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%, with both 'days' and 'name' fully documented. The description references 'periodo determinado' (determined period) which loosely maps to the days parameter, but adds no additional semantic context, validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (creates new contact list), resource (contact list), and unique scope (from inactive clients who haven't had conversations). The 'inactive clients' criterion effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_contact_list and create_list_from_followup.

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 when to use the tool (when targeting clients without recent conversations), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_list_from_followup or create_contact_list, nor does it mention prerequisites like existing client data.

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