WAzion MCP Server

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the tool retrieves progress and sending logs, but omits safety confirmations (read-only nature), error behavior for invalid campaign IDs, or pagination mechanics beyond the parameter existence.

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-loads the action, but includes a mysterious '[query]' tag at the end that appears to be a template artifact or unclear meta-comment, slightly undermining clarity without adding value.

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?

Sufficient for a 3-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema. However, given the lack of annotations and the presence of closely related sibling tools, it could better clarify the distinction between retrieving campaign logs versus campaign 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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('ID de la campana', 'Numero de pagina', 'Resultados por pagina'), the schema adequately documents parameters. The description implies campaign_id usage via 'campana especifica' but adds no syntax, format details, or semantic relationships beyond the schema baseline.

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 obtains 'el progreso y logs de envio' (progress and sending logs) for a specific campaign, using specific verbs and identifying the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_campaign' which likely retrieves campaign metadata rather than execution logs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_campaign' or 'list_campaigns'. There are no when-not conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria mentioned despite the crowded namespace of 100+ sibling tools.

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