WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions pagination and search functionality, it fails to state this is a safe read-only operation, doesn't describe error handling (e.g., invalid list_id), rate limits, or return format. '[query]' at the end is ambiguous.

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?

Compact two-part structure using em-dash separation. Front-loaded with the core action ('Ver detalle'), followed by implementation details. The '[query]' notation is slightly informal but efficient. No redundant fluff, though 'Ver detalle de lista de contactos' partially restates the function name.

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?

Adequate for a 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage, but gaps remain: no output schema exists, yet the description doesn't explain what data structure is returned (contact objects, count, etc.). Given the lack of annotations, safety/completeness disclosures are missing.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic context by explicitly mentioning 'paginación' (mapping to 'page') and 'búsqueda [query]' (mapping to 'search'), clarifying how these parameters function together. It also emphasizes 'lista específica' reinforcing the required list_id parameter.

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 it retrieves contacts from a specific list ('Obtiene los contactos de una lista específica') and mentions pagination/search capabilities. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'list_contact_lists' (which lists all lists) by focusing on contacts within one list, though it could explicitly contrast with 'add_contacts_to_list' or 'remove_contact_from_list'.

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 versus alternatives like 'list_contact_lists' or 'search_customers'. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that list_id must be valid). The description only states what it does, not when to choose it over sibling tools.

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