WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the scope as 'initial setup' which adds context, but fails to disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens when onboarding is complete.

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 essential information front-loaded. It efficiently uses an em-dash structure. Minor deduction for the trailing '[query]' tag which appears to be metadata leakage or noise that does not add 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?

No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return value structure. It mentions 'progress' vaguely but does not specify whether this includes completion percentages, step checklists, timestamps, or boolean flags. Given the low complexity (no inputs), the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in return value documentation.

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 tool has zero parameters (confirmed by schema and context signals). Per evaluation guidelines, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves onboarding status and displays initial user setup progress ('Ver estado del onboarding — Muestra el progreso de configuracion inicial del usuario'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling status-retrieval tools like get_crm_health_status or get_shop_status, and the mixed Spanish/English language may reduce clarity for English-targeting agents.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_customer_info for general account details). No mention of prerequisites or conditions where this tool should be avoided. The description only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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