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 only indicates '[mutation]' but fails to describe side effects (e.g., whether delete is permanent, what happens to merged threads, snooze duration limits), reversibility, or permission requirements. The overlap between the 'action' and 'status' parameters in the schema is not clarified.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the general purpose ('Accion sobre hilo de email') before enumerating specific actions. However, the '[mutation]' tag feels appended as an afterthought rather than integrated, and the long list of actions reduces scannability.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, multiple mutually exclusive action paths, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, or the conditional nature of parameters (e.g., that 'until' only applies when action='snooze'). Given the high complexity, the minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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%, documenting all 7 parameters including conditional fields (until, target_thread_id, tags, agent_hash). The description lists the possible actions but adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema, particularly regarding the confusing overlap between 'action' and 'status' parameters or the specific format expectations for the 'tags' array.

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 lists the specific actions available (archive, delete, spam, restore, mark unread, snooze, unsnooze, merge, set tags, assign) and identifies the resource (email thread). It marks the operation as a '[mutation]' indicating write behavior. However, it doesn't differentiate from specific sibling tools like 'assign_email_thread', 'snooze_email_thread', or 'merge_email_threads' that appear to perform overlapping functions.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this generic multi-action tool versus the numerous specific sibling alternatives (e.g., 'snooze_email_thread', 'set_email_tags', 'assign_email_thread'). No prerequisites are mentioned, and there's no warning about irreversible actions like 'delete' or destructive 'merge' behavior.

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