WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The verbs 'Ver' and 'Muestra' imply a read-only operation, but the description lacks explicit safety disclosure (readOnly), rate limits, error handling, or what specific statistical data is returned. It adds workflow context but not rich behavioral metadata.

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 with the purpose front-loaded, followed by details and prerequisites. However, the trailing '[query]' tag appears to be metadata or noise that doesn't add clarity, slightly detracting from an otherwise clean structure.

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 2-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the basic workflow. However, it fails to specify what statistical metrics are returned (e.g., query counts, usage metrics, performance data), which would help the agent understand the tool's utility without invoking it.

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 of 3. The description mentions the assistant_id requirement and prerequisite, but the schema already documents this workflow in the assistant_id property description. Therefore, the description adds minimal unique semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 specific Spanish verbs 'Ver' and 'Muestra' with the resource 'estadisticas de asistente Doc Q&A', clearly stating it retrieves statistics for a documentation Q&A assistant. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_docqa_detail (details) and get_docqa_logs (logs) by explicitly focusing on 'estadisticas' (statistics).

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: 'Requiere assistant_id: usa list_docqa_assistants primero para obtener los IDs disponibles.' This names the specific sibling tool needed beforehand. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this statistics tool versus alternatives like get_docqa_detail or get_docqa_logs.

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