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 but fails to disclose read-only safety, error handling (what happens if thread_id is invalid), rate limits, or the structure/format of the returned messages. The '[query]' fragment at the end is unclear.

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?

Front-loaded with action verb, concise two-clause structure separated by em-dash. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be a placeholder or artifact that slightly detracts from clarity 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?

Given the simple 2-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It mentions retrieving all messages but omits behavioral details like pagination limits or the relationship between page parameter and result sets.

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 ('ID del hilo', 'Numero de pagina para paginacion de mensajes'), establishing baseline 3. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema, only vaguely referencing 'especifico [query]' which may allude to thread_id but is cryptic.

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 states it retrieves all messages from a specific email thread using the verb 'Obtiene' (Gets). It implicitly distinguishes from list_email_threads by focusing on a single thread's content rather than a list, though it doesn't explicitly name siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_thread_action or list_email_threads. It doesn't mention that thread_id should come from list_email_threads or how to handle pagination across multiple pages.

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