WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like side effects, idempotency, error scenarios (e.g., what returns if e-commerce disconnected), or rate limits. The description implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm safety or cache behavior.

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 relatively brief but contains wasteful noise ('[query]' tag). The Spanish language is inconsistent with the English tool naming convention of sibling tools, potentially confusing multilingual agents. Information is front-loaded but the formatting is awkward.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fails to compensate by describing return values (e.g., sync percentage, last sync timestamp, error states). Given zero annotations and three optional parameters, the description should explain default behavior when no parameters are provided, which it does not.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for period, days, and date parameters. The description adds no additional parameter context, but with complete schema documentation, the baseline 3 is appropriate. It does not explain parameter relationships (e.g., mutual exclusivity between period and days).

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 resource (e-commerce sync status) and specific aspects covered (connection status + CRM sync statistics). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like test_ecommerce_connection (connectivity testing) and get_shop_status (general shop health). However, the '[query]' suffix is confusing and reduces clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_ecommerce_connection, get_crm_health_status, or get_shop_status. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active e-commerce connection) or when to prefer specific time period parameters.

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