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. It adds the important state constraint (completed/cancelled/paused/archived only) and mentions it downloads as a CSV file ('Descarga... como archivo CSV'). However, it lacks details on the return format (file content vs URL vs stream), authentication requirements, or whether the export is idempotent.

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 efficiently structured with two front-loaded sentences: the first stating the action and format, the second stating the constraint. The '[query]' suffix appears to be a template artifact but does not significantly impede clarity.

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 single-parameter export tool, the description covers the core purpose and state constraints. However, without an output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns (e.g., raw CSV content, download URL, or file reference) to ensure the agent knows how to handle the response.

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 the single campaign_id parameter ('ID de la campana cuyos resultados se quieren exportar'). The description references 'una campana' but does not add syntax details, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high 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 the tool exports campaign results to CSV format ('Exportar resultados de campana a CSV') and specifically targets send logs ('logs de envio'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_campaign_logs by specifying the CSV format and the restriction to completed/cancelled/paused/archived campaigns.

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 explicitly states the constraint 'Solo funciona con campanas completadas, canceladas, pausadas o archivadas' (Only works with completed, cancelled, paused or archived campaigns), providing clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., get_campaign_logs) for active campaigns.

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