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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get_' prefix but not stated), whether data is real-time or cached, rate limits, or the structure/format of returned statistics. The '[query]' notation is unexplained.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose (agent statistics). The em-dash structure efficiently separates the resource from the specific metrics. However, the trailing '[query]' is vague and doesn't earn its place without explanation.

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 lack of output schema, the description partially compensates by listing the specific metrics included (messages sent/received, tasks completed). However, it omits the return data structure, pagination behavior, and whether results are aggregated or per-agent by default. Adequate but incomplete for a 3-parameter analytics tool.

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 67% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description lists the specific metrics returned (messages, tasks) but adds no explicit parameter guidance. It does not clarify the relationship between 'period' (enum) and 'days' (integer) parameters or explain the '[query]' capability mentioned at the end of the description.

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 tool retrieves agent statistics ('Estadisticas de agentes') and specifies the exact performance metrics included: sent messages, received messages, and completed tasks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_agent_tasks (which returns task lists) and get_agent_permissions (access control), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_agent_performance.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like get_agent_performance or get_agent_activity. No mention of prerequisites, filtering strategies, or scenarios where this is preferred over other analytics tools.

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