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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic detection of standard folders (useful behavioral context) and implies a read-only discovery operation, but fails to state explicitly that this is safe/non-destructive or describe error scenarios (e.g., invalid account ID).

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core action, but includes a wasteful '[query]' placeholder at the end that appears to be a template artifact. The Spanish language is consistent throughout but creates inconsistency with the English tool name and sibling tools.

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?

For a two-parameter discovery tool without output schema, the description covers the essential mechanism (IMAP connection) and provides concrete folder examples. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should explicitly confirm this is a read operation and hint at return structure (folder list/mapping).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('action' and 'id'). The description mentions connecting to 'una cuenta de email' which loosely contextualizes the 'id' parameter, but adds no specific syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 it connects to an IMAP server and discovers available folders (Enviados, Papelera, Archivo, Spam), using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_email_folders' or 'list_email_accounts' by emphasizing IMAP discovery and automatic standard folder detection.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_email_accounts' or 'update_email_folders'. While the auto-detection feature implies initial setup usage, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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