WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses mutation status ('[mutation]'), the 10-workflow limit, and default active status. However, it fails to mention the upsert behavior (create vs update based on 'id' parameter), which is a significant behavioral trait. It also doesn't describe idempotency or return values.

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?

Efficiently structured and front-loaded: starts with purpose, then required fields, conditional logic, limits, and error handling. Every sentence provides actionable information (e.g., 'LIMITE: maximo 10 workflows'). No filler content despite being information-dense.

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?

Comprehensive for a 7-parameter mutation tool with nested objects. Covers business constraints (10 workflows), default behaviors, and error workflows. No output schema exists, and description appropriately doesn't speculate on return values. Only gap is the upsert behavior documentation.

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 coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds valuable usage context: name generation logic ('Respuesta IA fuera horario'), status conditional usage ('disabled' for review), and error handling involving sibling tools. This practical guidance exceeds the schema's technical definitions.

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 WhatsApp automation workflows with specific verbs ('Crea un nuevo workflow'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_whatsapp_workflows and update_whatsapp_workflow by focusing on creation. However, it omits that the tool performs an upsert (updates if 'id' parameter provided), which is significant behavior documented only in the schema.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: specifies when to auto-generate names ('Si el usuario no especifica nombre'), when to use status='disabled' ('Si el usuario pide crearlo desactivado'), and exact error handling procedures when hitting the 10-workflow limit (call list_whatsapp_workflows, suggest update_whatsapp_workflow). Names alternatives clearly.

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