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 the mutation nature, permanent deletion scope, and confirmation safety mechanism. However, it lacks details on failure modes (e.g., notification not found), idempotency, or whether the deletion is immediate vs. async. The mismatch between singular deletion language and plural/list-oriented parameters creates behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Well-structured with clear information hierarchy: action ('Eliminar notificacion'), behavioral details ('permanentemente', '[mutation]'), and safety constraint ('requiere confirmación'). Slightly redundant with the tool name at the start ('Eliminar notificacion —'). No extraneous information, though clarity on the filter parameters would improve conciseness value.

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 destructive single-resource operation: covers purpose, permanent nature, and confirmation requirement. However, it fails to explain the auxiliary parameters (limit, offset, filter, type, agent_id) which suggest potential bulk capabilities, nor does it describe return values or success/failure behavior given the lack of output schema.

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, establishing baseline 3. The description adds '[mutation]' context and emphasizes the confirm requirement, though the schema already describes confirm as 'Pasar true para confirmar'. It does not resolve the semantic confusion of why a deletion tool includes list-pagination parameters (limit, offset) alongside a specific ID.

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?

Clearly states it permanently deletes a notification using specific verb ('Elimina') and resource ('notificacion'). The '[mutation]' tag and 'permanentemente' help distinguish from soft-delete alternatives like mark_notification_read. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives to clarify when to use this vs. other notification management tools.

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 documents the safety requirement: 'requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'. This is critical usage guidance for a destructive operation. However, it fails to clarify the relationship between the required notification_id and the optional filtering parameters (limit, offset, filter), leaving ambiguity about whether bulk deletion is supported.

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