WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is retrieved (configured permissions + available permissions record), which adds context beyond the name. However, it fails to disclose safety properties (read-only vs. destructive), error handling for invalid IDs, or rate limits.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action ('Ver permisos'). The em-dash structure effectively separates the title-like phrase from the detailed explanation. The trailing '[query]' tag is minor structural noise 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 simple single-parameter getter without an output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned (current and available permissions). However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should ideally describe the return structure or error behavior to be fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('ID del agente'), the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description implies the ID refers to the agent whose permissions are being retrieved but does not add syntax details, examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Ver', 'Obtiene') and clearly identifies the resource (agent permissions). It distinguishes this as a retrieval operation (vs. the sibling 'save_agent_permissions') by stating it obtains configured permissions and the complete record of available permissions. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative or explicitly contrast with modification operations.

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 'save_agent_permissions', 'list_agents', or 'get_agent_activity'. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid agent ID first) and exclusion criteria.

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