WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what metrics are calculated (orders, spending, tenure, interactions) but lacks safety indicators (read-only status), error handling behavior (e.g., invalid phone), or computation methodology.

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?

Single sentence with em-dash structure is appropriately concise. The trailing '[query]' appears to be noise or a placeholder that slightly detracts from clarity, but overall information density is high with minimal waste.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately explains the conceptual return value by listing the calculated metrics. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination (if applicable), or null handling that would make it fully complete.

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% (phone parameter documented as 'Telefono del cliente'). The description does not mention the phone parameter or add semantic context beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

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 it calculates customer lifetime value metrics (orders, spending, tenure, interactions), providing specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_customer_info or get_purchase_history, though the metric list implies the distinction.

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 versus alternatives like get_customer_info or get_customer_journey. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., customer must exist) or exclusion criteria.

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