WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively communicates the destructive cascade (deletes list AND contacts), irreversibility, and the confirmation safety mechanism. The [mutation] tag also signals write 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?

The description is efficiently structured with zero waste: purpose upfront ('Eliminar lista de contactos'), scope clarification ('y todos sus contactos asociados'), risk warning ('no se puede deshacer'), and execution requirement ('requiere confirmación') in a compact form.

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 destructive nature and lack of annotations/output schema, the description adequately covers critical behavioral traits (cascading deletion, irreversibility, confirmation gate). It lacks explicit error case documentation, but the core operational context is complete.

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, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly instructing to 'pasar confirm=true para ejecutar' in the main text, reinforcing the schema description with imperative usage guidance.

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 uses specific verbs ('Elimina') and clearly identifies the resource ('lista de contactos'). It distinguishes from siblings like remove_contact_from_list by explicitly stating it deletes 'todos sus contactos asociados' (all associated contacts), not just the list container.

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 clear usage context by stating the action is irreversible ('no se puede deshacer') and requires explicit confirmation ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with remove_contact_from_list for cases where only specific contacts should be deleted.

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