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. While 'Analiza' implies a read-only operation, the description fails to specify the output format (since no output schema exists), whether the analysis includes all channels or specific ones, what time zone is used, or any rate limits. The '[query]' suffix appears to be a template artifact that adds no clarity.

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 key concept 'Horas mas activas' followed by the explanation. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be an unremoved template placeholder, reducing clarity. The structure is otherwise efficient with no redundant sentences beyond this artifact.

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 and annotations, the description should explain the return value (e.g., hourly message counts, peak times) and clarify parameter interactions (e.g., whether 'date' and 'period' are mutually exclusive or composable). It provides neither, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, documenting all three parameters (days, period, date) with types, defaults, and formats. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness. The '[query]' text at the end of the description does not correspond to any parameter and may cause confusion.

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 the tool analyzes 'a que horas del dia se reciben mas mensajes de clientes' (at what hours of the day more client messages are received), specifying the resource (client messages) and the analysis dimension (hourly peaks). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling analytics tools like get_conversation_analytics or get_chat_sessions.

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_analytics or get_period_stats, nor does it mention prerequisites such as required permissions or data availability. There is no indication of when not to use it.

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