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 'todos los mensajes' (all messages) indicating comprehensive data retrieval, but lacks critical information about whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works (despite the offset parameter), rate limits, or whether the tool returns raw data or a file reference.

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 sentence but suffers from tautology ('Exportar conversaciones — Exporta conversaciones'). The trailing '[query]' appears to be a formatting error or placeholder that serves no semantic purpose. Every sentence should earn its place, but the first half of this sentence restates the tool name.

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's complexity (13 parameters with multiple filtering strategies including date ranges, periods, hours, and pagination), the single-sentence description is inadequate. Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain the return format (JSON vs file download), pagination behavior, and typical use cases, but it provides none of these.

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, establishing a baseline score. The description mentions '[query]' at the end (likely referencing the query parameter) and hints at structured format/export nature, but adds no substantive explanation of parameter interactions, validation rules, or semantic relationships between the 13 available filters.

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 states the tool exports conversations with all messages in a structured format, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like `search_conversations`, `get_conversations_summary`, or `get_conversation_detail`, leaving ambiguity about when to use this export tool versus other retrieval options.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusion criteria mentioned. The description does not advise on parameter combinations (e.g., using date ranges vs. period enums) or typical export workflows.

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