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. It adds value by specifying the three key data fields returned (enabled, timezone, booking rules), but omits other behavioral traits such as error conditions, idempotency, cache behavior, or the full structure of the response. It confirms this is a read operation through the verb 'Get'.

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 and resource. The em-dash structure effectively separates the title from the details. However, the '[query]' tag at the end appears to be metadata that adds no semantic value for the agent, slightly detracting from an otherwise efficient description.

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 tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no input requirements) and lack of output schema, the description provides minimally viable completeness by identifying the key return fields. However, without an output schema, it should ideally describe the return structure more thoroughly (e.g., whether it returns a single object or nested configuration).

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 score of 4. The description correctly offers no parameter details (as none exist), and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no parameters to document).

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Calendar Settings'), and clarifies the scope by listing specific retrieved fields ('enabled, timezone, booking rules'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'save_calendar_settings' (read vs. write) and 'list_calendars' (settings vs. calendar list), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_calendar_settings' or 'list_calendars'. While the 'Get' verb implies read-only usage, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., calendar must be connected first) or specific scenarios where this is preferred over other calendar tools.

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