WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While 'Devuelve' indicates data retrieval, it lacks explicit read-only assurance, error behavior (what happens with invalid ID), or return value structure (integer days? object?). The trailing '[query]' tag is cryptic and adds confusion.

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?

Appropriately brief and front-loaded with the action and resource. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be metadata leakage or noise that doesn't serve the agent, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description minimally compensates by stating it returns the retention period, but doesn't describe the return format (data type, units). Sufficient for a simple getter with one parameter, though could specify the scope (store-wide vs account-specific).

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter ('ID de la cuenta de correo'). The description does not add additional semantics about the parameter format or where to obtain valid IDs, but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema documentation.

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?

Uses specific verbs 'Ver' (View) and 'Devuelve' (Returns) with clear resource 'periodo de retencion de emails' (email retention period). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'update_email_retention' by indicating read-only behavior, though it could more explicitly define what 'retention period' means (e.g., days until deletion/archival).

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_email_retention', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid email account ID from 'get_email_accounts') or common use cases (checking settings before modification).

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