WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains what 'health' means in this context (consecutive errors, activation status), but fails to clarify operational traits like whether this triggers a fresh health check or reads cached data, potential rate limits, or safety characteristics.

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 efficiently structured with a clear title-fragment followed by an em-dash and explanatory details. It avoids verbosity while conveying essential information, though the trailing '[query]' tag appears to be metadata debris that slightly detracts from the cleanliness.

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 (no input parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing the conceptual content of the return value (status flags, error counters, endpoint lists). For a simple health-check utility, this level of description is sufficient, though explicit output structure details would improve it further.

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. The description appropriately does not mention parameters, as none exist requiring semantic clarification.

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 displays CRM endpoint health status, including specific details like active/disabled states and error counters. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'update_crm_endpoints' and 'test_crm_endpoint' by emphasizing passive status reading rather than modification or active testing. The '[query]' tag at the end is unnecessary noise that prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_crm_endpoint' (which likely performs active connectivity tests) or 'reset_crm_errors' (which clears error states). While the descriptive content implies monitoring use cases, explicit 'when-to-use' guidance is absent.

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