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 mentions the data retrieved but fails to explain the apparent mismatch between the read-oriented verb 'Obtiene' (Gets) and the write-oriented parameters present (comment, tag_name, tag_color, primary_phone/secondary_phone for merge). It does not clarify if these parameters perform side effects (add comments/tags/merge) or act as filters, nor does it mention safety, idempotency, or error handling.

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 and front-loaded with the core action verb. It efficiently lists the data categories returned in a single sentence. However, the unexplained '[query]' at the end detracts from the overall polish and clarity, suggesting an incomplete edit or placeholder.

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 high complexity (9 parameters including apparent write/merge operations), lack of output schema, and absence of annotations, the description is insufficient. It treats the tool as a simple read operation while the schema suggests a multi-function endpoint that overlaps with several sibling tools (add_customer_comment, add_customer_tag, merge_customers). Critical context about the dual nature of these parameters is missing.

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 score. The description does not add explanatory value beyond the schema to resolve the confusion around why 'get_customer_info' accepts parameters seemingly intended for 'add_customer_comment', 'add_customer_tag', or 'merge_customers' (e.g., 'comment', 'tag_color', 'primary_phone para merge'). It mentions '[query]' which loosely references the query parameter but without explaining its relationship to the required 'phone' field.

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 obtains a complete customer profile ('Obtiene perfil completo') and enumerates specific data returned (CRM data, comments, tags, conversations, files, tasks). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_customers' tool, and the trailing '[query]' appears to be an artifact or placeholder that slightly muddies the intent.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_customers' (for fuzzy search) or 'get_customer_journey' (for timeline data). While the required 'phone' parameter implies this is for direct lookup by identifier, the description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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