WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses the two-phase confirmation flow (initial call returns requires_confirmation=true with success=false, which is 'NO es un error'), identifies it as a [mutation], and warns it's an 'acción peligrosa'. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state the deletion is irreversible or describe the final success response structure.

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?

Appropriately structured with clear sections: purpose statement followed by FLUJO DE CONFIRMACION section. The caps and imperative commands ('NO llames', 'PARA') are justified for a destructive operation. Slightly verbose but every sentence serves the critical safety flow; could trim '[mutation]' tag which is already implied by context.

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 2-parameter input schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the confirmation handshake behavior and dangerous nature of the operation. Missing only a brief description of what successful deletion returns (e.g., success=true) and whether the template deletion affects existing scheduled messages using that template.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds crucial behavioral context for the 'confirm' parameter beyond the schema's basic description. It explains the confirmation flow choreography—when to expect the confirmation prompt versus when to pass confirm=true—adding essential usage semantics for this two-phase operation.

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 explicitly states it 'Elimina una plantilla de mensaje de WhatsApp' (deletes a WhatsApp message template), using a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like delete_whatsapp_session and delete_whatsapp_workflow, this clearly targets templates specifically.

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 exceptional guidance for the confirmation flow: explicitly states to stop and 'NO llames de nuevo a esta accion' when receiving requires_confirmation=true, describes what to tell the user ('la plantilla se eliminara'), and notes that the system will show Confirm/Cancel buttons automatically. Also clarifies that passing confirm=true executes the dangerous action.

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