WAzion MCP Server

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully enumerates the data categories included in the summary (conversations through tasks), providing useful context about scope. However, it lacks operational details such as pagination behavior, rate limiting, required permissions, or whether the summary is cached versus real-time. The read-only nature is implied by the 'get_' prefix but not explicitly confirmed.

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 as a single sentence with a colon-delimited list of data types. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be metadata leakage or a placeholder that wastes space and creates confusion. The Spanish language is concise but mixed with English schema descriptions, creating minor friction.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three input parameters with range flexibility, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify the output format (structured JSON, plain text, report object?), aggregation methods, or time zone handling. The tension between the singular 'dia' description and plural period parameters suggests incomplete specification of the tool's actual capabilities.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the structured schema already documents all three parameters adequately (date format, period options, days integer). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description could have clarified the mutual exclusivity or interaction between date, period, and days parameters, which remains ambiguous.

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 this as a daily activity summary tool and specifically enumerates covered data domains (conversations, messages, plugins, workflows, follow-ups, tasks), distinguishing it from generic analytics siblings like get_analytics or get_period_stats. However, the '[query]' suffix appears to be an artifact or placeholder that creates ambiguity, and the Spanish-only description may reduce clarity for English-only agents.

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 overlapping siblings such as get_analytics, get_usage_stats, or get_team_summary. Critically, the description emphasizes 'un dia' (a single day) but the parameters support multi-day ranges (period, days), creating confusion about whether this is strictly daily or can aggregate ranges. No explanation of how date, period, and days parameters interact or which take precedence.

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