WAzion MCP Server

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by disclosing the specific metrics returned (conversations, messages, daily activity), but omits safety properties, rate limits, caching behavior, or whether data is real-time versus aggregated.

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 brief and front-loaded, but includes unexplained noise ('[query]' at the end). The Spanglish construction ('Ver analytics — Muestra...') is slightly inconsistent but comprehensible.

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 single optional parameter and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned. However, it misses the opportunity to clarify how this tool fits within the extensive analytics ecosystem on this server.

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 'period' parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter details, failing to explain how the period affects the returned metrics or default behavior.

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 shows performance metrics (conversations, messages, daily activity) using specific verbs ('Ver', 'Muestra'). However, it fails to differentiate from numerous sibling analytics tools like get_conversation_analytics or get_structured_analytics, leaving the scope ambiguous.

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 general analytics tool versus the many specific alternatives (e.g., get_email_stats, get_chat_plugin_stats). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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