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 but fails to mention safety properties (read-only), rate limits, or return structure. It only minimally describes the data granularity ('daily evolution'). It does not explain what constitutes a 'conversation' versus a 'message' or how the statistics are aggregated.

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 at one sentence with an em-dash structure. However, the inclusion of '[query]' at the end appears to be a template placeholder or formatting error that serves no communicative purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately identifies the subject matter (conversations/messages) and temporal scope. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should describe the return value structure (e.g., whether it returns arrays of daily counts, averages, or structured objects) to be complete.

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 67% description coverage (date and days are documented, period is not). The description does not compensate for the missing 'period' parameter documentation nor explain the relationship between the three parameters (e.g., mutual exclusivity or precedence rules). It earns baseline 3 since schema coverage exceeds 50%, but adds no semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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 identifies the resource (conversations and messages) and the specific analysis (daily evolution/statistics by period). The Spanish text 'Evolucion diaria' distinguishes this from sibling aggregate stats tools like get_analytics by implying time-series data. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be template residue or noise that slightly detracts from clarity, and it doesn't explicitly state the return format.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous sibling statistics tools (get_analytics, get_conversation_analytics, get_usage_stats, etc.). There is no mention of prerequisites, parameter interactions (e.g., whether 'days' overrides 'period'), or when to prefer this over other time-based analytics endpoints.

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