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 correctly identifies the operation as a [mutation] and warns that confirmation is required for this 'acción peligrosa'. However, it fails to explain failure modes, reversibility, or the behavior when the exact text matches multiple messages.

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 in a single sentence with tags: action statement, constraint (exact text), mutation classification, and confirmation instruction. No extraneous words; every element provides necessary safety or usage information.

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 14 parameters (many appearing to be for filtering/pagination), the description only addresses the 2 required parameters (phone, message) and confirm. The significant gap regarding the purpose of query, date ranges, limit/offset, and other optional parameters in a deletion context makes the description incomplete for the tool's apparent complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the critical 'confirm' parameter and the exact text requirement for 'message'. However, it provides no context for the 12 optional parameters (limit, offset, date ranges, etc.), leaving ambiguity about their interaction with the required parameters.

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 the tool deletes a specific message from a conversation ('Elimina un mensaje especifico') and requires exact text matching. While it implies specificity through the exact-text requirement, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like delete_conversation_file.

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 critical safety constraints (requires confirmation=true to execute) and notes the exact text requirement. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus bulk deletion alternatives or how to use the optional filtering parameters.

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