WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate safety (read-only vs destructive), pagination behavior, rate limits, or what data is returned. The agent cannot determine if this is a safe operation or what side effects might occur.

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 brief and front-loaded with the topic ('Sesiones de chat web'), but the '[query]' suffix appears to be an artifact or placeholder that adds no value and creates confusion. Otherwise efficiently structured.

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 annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about the return format, session scope, or filtering behavior. For a tool with 4 optional filtering parameters, the description inadequately explains what constitutes a session or how the filters interact.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear Spanish descriptions for all 4 parameters (hours, limit, plugin_type, period). The description adds no specific parameter guidance, but with complete schema coverage, it meets the baseline expectation without needing to compensate.

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 identifies the action ('Lista') and resource ('sesiones recientes del widget de chat web'), but the trailing '[query]' is cryptic and unexplained. It fails to differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_plugin_chat_sessions' or 'get_recent_conversations', leaving ambiguity about which conversation retrieval tool to use.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_plugin_chat_sessions', 'get_conversations_summary', or 'get_recent_conversations'. The cryptic '[query]' hint does not constitute meaningful usage guidance.

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