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 specifies what data is returned (the performance metrics), which helps, but fails to explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, lacks idempotency warnings, or mention rate limits/error behaviors. It meets the minimum by implying the read nature through content description but lacks safety transparency.

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 line, which is efficient, but contains redundant phrasing ('Rendimiento detallado de agente' vs 'Metricas detalladas de rendimiento de un agente'). The '[query]' suffix appears to be a template artifact that reduces clarity and suggests incomplete editing.

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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned. However, it lacks scope constraints (e.g., historical limits, single-agent only) and error handling context that would help an agent predict failure modes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining the relationship between 'days' and 'period', or providing format examples). The trailing '[query]' text is confusing but does not constitute parameter documentation.

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 identifies the resource (agent performance) and specifies the exact metrics returned (assigned clients, tasks, completion rate), distinguishing it from siblings like get_agent_stats or get_agent_activity. However, it suffers from slight redundancy ('Rendimiento detallado... Metricas detalladas') and contains a trailing '[query]' artifact that slightly muddies the purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_agent_stats, get_agent_activity, or get_agent_tasks. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., valid agent_id) or constraints on the date range parameters.

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