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. It explains the critical two-phase flow (initial call returns requires_confirmation=true with success=false), clarifies this is normal behavior not an error, and notes the system will display automatic buttons. It identifies the operation as a mutation. Could be improved by mentioning idempotency or cancellation behavior, but covers the essential behavioral contract well.

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?

Uses structural markers (PREREQUISITO OBLIGATORIO, FLUJO DE CONFIRMACION) and strategic capitalization to highlight critical safety information. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the operation, enforcing prerequisites, or guiding the confirmation flow. Slightly repetitive ('SIEMPRE falla', 'NO es un error') but justified given the complexity of the confirmation flow and consequences of misuse.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return behavior (requires_confirmation=true, success=false). It adequately covers the complex confirmation flow and mandatory prerequisites. Could be improved by describing the final success state or failure modes beyond missing session_id, but provides sufficient context for safe operation.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces critical parameters (session_id must come from get_whatsapp_status, confirm=true required for execution) but largely repeats information already present in the schema rather than adding new semantic context about parameter formats or validation rules.

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 explicitly states the tool schedules WhatsApp messages for future delivery ('Programa un mensaje de WhatsApp para envio futuro'). It uses a specific verb (schedule/program) and resource (WhatsApp message) that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_whatsapp_message (immediate) or update_scheduled_message (modification).

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite tool that must be called first ('DEBES llamar a get_whatsapp_status'). It clearly defines the two-phase confirmation flow, explicitly states what NOT to do ('NO llames de nuevo a esta accion'), and explains when to use the confirm parameter. This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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