WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only mentions that customer data is included ('incluyendo datos del cliente'). It fails to state this is read-only, doesn't describe the message format/structure, pagination behavior, or error handling when a conversation is not found.

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 em-dash structure efficiently separates title from description, but the placement of '[query]' at the end is awkward and confusing—it appears to be a malformed reference to the query parameter rather than part of the sentence. Two sentences but the second is incomplete.

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?

With 13 parameters including multiple time-range filters (date_from/date_to, hours, period, last_n), pagination (limit/offset), and alternative identifiers (phone/conversation_id), the tool has significant complexity. The description fails to explain parameter interactions, mutual exclusivity, or precedence rules, leaving critical gaps for an agent trying to construct valid calls.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description adds minimal value beyond schema— the trailing '[query]' appears to reference the query parameter but is ambiguously placed and doesn't clarify its search behavior within messages. No explanation of parameter relationships (e.g., phone vs conversation_id as alternatives).

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 displays complete messages from a specific conversation ('Muestra los mensajes completos de una conversacion especifica'), distinguishing it from list-based siblings like get_conversations_summary or get_recent_conversations. However, it doesn't differentiate from channel-specific alternatives like get_whatsapp_conversation_history.

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 provided on when to use this versus search_conversations or get_conversations_summary. Critically missing: explanation that phone and conversation_id are mutually exclusive alternatives, and no guidance on parameter precedence when multiple filters (date_from, hours, period) are provided.

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