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. It adds valuable context about what specific data is returned (free, purchased, percentage used, renewal date), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope. However, it does not disclose read-only safety, error handling, caching behavior, or whether the data is real-time vs. cached.

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 appropriately sized with three efficient sentences front-loaded with the core purpose. The structure is logical: purpose → details → usage trigger. The trailing '[query]' appears to be an artifact or placeholder that slightly detracts from perfect polish.

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 tool's low complexity (zero parameters, simple getter) and absence of output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the essentials by detailing what credit information is retrieved. For a read-only status check, explaining the returned data fields (free, purchased, etc.) provides sufficient completeness.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rubric. With no parameters to describe, the description meets the expected standard.

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 the tool retrieves detailed credit information including free credits, purchased credits, usage percentage, and renewal date. It uses specific verbs (Ver/Muestra) and identifies the resource (creditos). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool `get_credit_history` despite listing specific fields that imply current status vs. historical data.

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?

The description includes explicit usage guidance: 'Usa esta accion cuando el usuario pregunte especificamente por creditos' (Use this action when the user specifically asks about credits). This provides clear context for invocation. It lacks explicit exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use `get_credit_history` instead), preventing a score of 5.

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