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. While 'Historial' implies a read operation, the description fails to disclose pagination behavior, data volume limits, error handling (e.g., invalid phone number), or whether the operation is idempotent. The phrase '[query]' at the end is ambiguous and unexplained.

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 front-loaded with the core concept but contains redundancy ('Historial' vs 'Timeline'). It is appropriately brief, but the trailing '[query]' appears to be noise or an incomplete placeholder that reduces clarity without adding value.

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 with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned (specific entity types). However, it lacks information about the return structure, format, or volume expectations that would help an agent handle the response, which is particularly important since no output schema exists to provide this context.

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 has 100% description coverage with clear Spanish descriptions for all four parameters (phone, date, period, days). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, nor does it explain the interaction between date/period/days parameters (mutually exclusive vs. combinable).

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 identifies the tool's scope as retrieving a complete customer timeline ('Historial completo del cliente') and explicitly lists the data types returned (mensajes, comentarios, archivos, tareas, pedidos, follow-ups). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_customer_info (basic profile) or get_customer_comments (single data type).

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 defines what the tool returns but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_conversation_detail or get_customer_info. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or usage constraints mentioned.

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