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 adds value by noting the return includes 'status and basic configuration,' but lacks critical safety indicators (read-only vs. destructive), pagination behavior, or permission requirements that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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 brief but suffers from redundancy ('Listar cuentas de email — Lista las cuentas de email...') and includes an unexplained '[query]' tag that appears to be a placeholder or artifact, slightly confusing the message without adding value.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description minimally suffices by indicating what data is returned (status, configuration). However, it omits return format details, pagination limits, or filtering capabilities that would complete the agent's understanding of the tool's scope.

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 contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, though the trailing '[query]' artifact does not significantly detract given the empty schema is unambiguous.

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 lists accessible email accounts with status and basic configuration, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like `list_email_accounts` and `get_email_account` (singular), leaving ambiguity about which listing tool to use.

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 such as `get_email_account` (singular) or `list_email_accounts`. There are no prerequisites, filtering caveats, or exclusions mentioned despite the presence of similar sibling tools.

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