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. It successfully indicates the polling nature of the endpoint, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it fails to disclose other critical behaviors: whether this is read-only (implied but not stated), what processing states are returned, rate limits for polling, or whether the operation is idempotent/safe.

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 and front-loaded with the key action. The structure 'Estado... — Obtiene... (polling endpoint) [query]' efficiently delivers the core concept, though the '[query]' suffix is superfluous and slightly reduces clarity without adding semantic 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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context: what it retrieves (processing status) and for which scope (all knowledge files). However, it lacks completeness regarding what 'processing' entails (uploading, indexing, embedding) and omits any hint about the return structure or status values.

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, which per evaluation rules establishes a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, though it appropriately makes no mention of parameters that don't exist.

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 the action 'Obtiene el estado de procesamiento' (Gets the processing status) and the resource 'archivos de conocimiento' (knowledge files). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_knowledge_file or list_knowledge_files by specifying 'processing status' and 'todos los archivos' (all files) scope. The '[query]' tag is somewhat cryptic but doesn't obscure the primary 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 provides implied usage context through '(polling endpoint)', suggesting this tool is intended for status polling scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., instead of list_knowledge_files) or alternatives for real-time updates versus polling.

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