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 offers no behavioral context. It doesn't explain whether the write-like parameters (comment, agent_name, tag_name) are for filtering, creating, or updating; doesn't mention pagination behavior despite the 'limit' parameter; and doesn't clarify the merge functionality suggested by phone parameters.

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 brief (one sentence), but the '[query]' artifact appears to be an editing error or unresolved placeholder rather than intentional conciseness. The front-loaded resource identifier ('Comentarios del cliente') is clear, but the structure is compromised by the trailing artifact.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters including potential merge functionality and no output schema, the single-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to address the mismatch between the 'get' verb and the presence of creation-oriented parameters (tag_color, comment text), leaving critical operational context undocumented.

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 hinting at the 'query' parameter via the '[query]' placeholder at the end. It doesn't explain the semantics of the 9 diverse parameters or their interactions.

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 basic action ('Obtiene') and resources ('comentarios y tags'), but includes a placeholder artifact '[query]' that reduces clarity. It fails to differentiate from the sibling 'search_customer_comments' or explain why this retrieval tool accepts write-like parameters (comment, tag_name, tag_color).

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 alternatives like 'search_customer_comments' or 'add_customer_comment'. The presence of parameters like 'primary_phone' and 'secondary_phone' (for merge) without explanation creates confusion about the tool's scope.

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