WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses mutation nature via [mutation] tag and confirmation requirement. However, missing details on side effects (whether synced events are deleted or just disconnected, OAuth token revocation, reversibility).

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?

Dense but efficient: title-like prefix, resource explanation, mutation tag, and safety parenthetical. All sentences earn their place, though the parenthetical confirmation instruction could be clearer as a separate sentence.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter destructive operation with no output schema. Covers the critical confirmation safety mechanism. Missing only data-impact context (what happens to existing synced events when connection is severed).

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 has 100% description coverage. Description adds imperative usage context 'pasar confirm=true para ejecutar' beyond the schema's declarative description, clarifying the agent must actively set this parameter to proceed.

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?

Specific verb 'elimina' + resource 'conexion de proveedor de calendario' + scope '(Google/Microsoft)'. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like delete_calendar (deletes the calendar entity) and delete_calendar_event by specifying this targets the provider connection/auth link.

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?

Provides critical safety instruction '(requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar)', but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives (e.g., when to disconnect vs. delete the calendar) or prerequisites beyond the confirmation flag.

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