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 partially compensates by indicating the tool returns 'complete details' and statistics, hinting at the response content. However, it lacks information about error handling (e.g., invalid ID), safety characteristics, or rate limits that would be essential for a mutation tool, though less critical for this read operation.

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 reasonably concise with an em-dash structure separating the title concept from the action. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be a template placeholder or formatting error that was not removed, which slightly degrades the quality and could confuse the agent about whether this is a search/query operation.

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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool without an output schema, the description adequately indicates what data is returned (complete details and statistics). However, it stops short of describing the return structure, field types, or error scenarios, leaving gaps that an output schema would typically fill.

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 for its single parameter ('ID del asistente Doc-QA'), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description does not add additional semantic context about the parameter (e.g., where to obtain the ID or validation rules), but given the complete schema coverage, no additional compensation is required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Obtiene'/gets) and resource ('asistente Doc-QA'), and clarifies the scope by mentioning it retrieves 'detalles completos' including 'estadisticas'. This helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_docqa_stats (likely stats-only) and list_docqa_assistants (plural listing). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast the single-item lookup (by ID) versus listing all assistants.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list_docqa_assistants vs this detail endpoint). There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as needing to obtain the assistant_id from a list operation first.

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