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. While it indicates the function returns a total count, it fails to specify whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' prefix only), return data type/format, caching behavior, or error conditions (e.g., no accounts configured).

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 appropriately brief with the key purpose front-loaded. However, the '[query]' fragment at the end appears to be artifacts or placeholders that do not earn their place, slightly detracting from 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?

Given no output schema exists, the description partially compensates by stating it returns a total ('Devuelve el total'). However, it lacks specifics on the return format (integer vs object) or units. For a simple counter tool with zero parameters, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 has zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation, though the '[query]' text in the description is confusing given the empty parameter schema.

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 returns the total count of unread emails across all accounts ('Devuelve el total de emails no leidos en todas las cuentas'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_email_stats (general statistics) and get_unread_notification_count (notifications vs emails). The '[query]' suffix is ambiguous but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 mentions the scope ('en todas las cuentas' / across all accounts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_email_filter_counts or get_email_stats. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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