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 valuable context by specifying 'detalles completos' (complete details), indicating the depth of the response. However, it lacks critical safety information (e.g., read-only assurance), error handling behavior for invalid IDs, or rate limit considerations that would be essential for a mutation-free tool.

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 relatively compact but contains redundancy between the dash-separated header phrase and the following sentence, both stating similar retrieval actions. The trailing '[query]' appears to be an unsubstituted template artifact that detracts from professionalism and clarity, preventing a higher score.

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 (single integer parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions 'complete details' to hint at return content, but without an output schema, it should ideally provide more specific information about what campaign attributes are returned or error conditions to expect.

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 ('ID de la campaña'), so the schema fully documents the parameter semantics. The description adds no additional parameter context (such as ID format constraints or where to obtain the ID), which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 action ('Obtiene'/Gets) and resource ('campaña de marketing masivo'/mass marketing campaign), and uses 'detalle' (detail) to imply single-record retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_campaigns or get_campaign_logs, which would help the agent select the correct tool in a crowded namespace.

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 such as list_campaigns (for multiple campaigns) or update_campaign (for modifications). There are no stated prerequisites beyond the schema-required campaign_id, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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