WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the read-only nature (implied by 'Muestra'), pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), rate limits, or what the response format contains. The rich filtering capabilities (date ranges, phone, hours) are not described behaviorally.

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?

While brief, the '[query]' suffix creates confusion—it's unclear if this refers to the query parameter, indicates incomplete text, or is a formatting error. The single-sentence structure is efficient but the description is too minimal for a tool with 13 parameters offering complex filtering. Front-loading is poor due to the ambiguous ending.

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 13 parameters including pagination, date filtering, and phone filtering, plus no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the filtering capabilities, pagination strategy, or return structure. For a complex query tool with many siblings, the description should detail the filtering logic and when this specific endpoint is preferred.

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 a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—only the vague '[query]' reference hints at the search parameter without explaining the complex filtering logic (date ranges, phone filtering, pagination) or how parameters interact. It does not compensate for the complexity of 13 parameters.

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 states the core function ('Muestra las conversaciones asignadas a un agente especifico') with a clear verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like search_conversations, get_conversations_summary, or get_recent_conversations. The trailing '[query]' is confusing and appears to be a formatting artifact or placeholder rather than meaningful content.

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 on when to use this tool versus the numerous alternative conversation-retrieval tools (search_conversations, get_conversation_detail, get_recent_conversations, etc.). While 'by agent' implies the specific use case, there are no explicit when/when-not instructions or mentions of prerequisites like required permissions.

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