WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the '[query]' notation signifies (unclear tag), whether data is real-time or cached, or what format the consumption data returns in. The cryptic '[query]' at the end adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 (one sentence) and uses an em-dash structure for quick scanning. However, the '[query]' tag at the end appears to be metadata leakage or unclear notation that wastes space without adding value, slightly undermining the conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits explanation of the phone filtering capability (which seems contextually significant for credit history), does not describe the return format or structure (critical without an output schema), and fails to explain what 'endpoint' refers to (API endpoint? service endpoint?).

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, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'por dia' (by day) which loosely connects to the date/period parameters, but it fails to explain the relationship between the mutually exclusive time parameters (days vs date vs period) or the unexpected 'phone' parameter (which appears to filter by customer phone but isn't mentioned in the description despite being a significant filtering option).

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 'Muestra el consumo de creditos OpenAI por dia y por endpoint' (Shows OpenAI credit consumption by day and by endpoint), specifying the resource (OpenAI credits), the verb (shows/consumption history), and the granularity (daily/by endpoint). It distinguishes from siblings like get_credits_info by specifying historical consumption patterns rather than current balance.

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 siblings like get_usage_stats, get_credits_info, or get_purchase_history. Does not clarify whether this requires specific permissions or if it should be used for billing reconciliation versus real-time monitoring.

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