WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the operation as a [mutation] and mandates confirmation, but fails to disclose consequences (e.g., whether disconnection deletes historical data, stops webhooks immediately, or is reversible).

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 efficiently front-loads the action ('Desconectar plataforma e-commerce') followed by details, examples, and the mutation tag. Slight redundancy between the title-phrase and explanatory sentence prevents a perfect score.

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 tool has only 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential safety requirement (confirmation) and scope, though it could benefit from noting data retention policies post-disconnection.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description repeats the confirmation instruction already present in the schema and provides platform examples, but does not add syntax details or semantic nuance beyond the structured schema definitions.

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 specific action (disconnect/remove integration) and resource (e-commerce platform), with concrete examples (Shopify, WooCommerce) that distinguish it from sibling tools like connect_ecommerce or disconnect_whatsapp.

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?

It provides explicit safety guidance by requiring confirmation (confirm=true) to execute, indicating this is a destructive action. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over test_ecommerce_connection or configure_ecommerce_locales.

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