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. While 'Muestra' implies a read operation, the description fails to mention that this returns sensitive credentials (security risk), whether the operation is idempotent, or any rate limiting. For a credential-exposure tool, this omission is significant.

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 efficiently structured with two front-loaded sentences: purpose declaration followed by usage conditions. Minor deduction for the trailing '[query]' artifact which appears extraneous and potentially confusing given the empty parameter schema.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description adequately identifies the return values (API key and URL). However, given that this exposes sensitive authentication credentials, the description is incomplete without warnings about security sensitivity or handling instructions. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 contains zero parameters (empty object), establishing a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation. The trailing '[query]' appears to be an artifact rather than meaningful 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 states it displays the current API key (token_ext) and MCP server URL using specific verbs ('Ver', 'Muestra'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'regenerate_api_key', which could help agents distinguish between viewing existing credentials versus rotating them.

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?

Provides explicit contextual triggers: 'Usa esta accion cuando el usuario pregunte por su API key, token, como conectar MCP, o como configurar Claude/Cursor/VS Code.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of the regeneration alternative.

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