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 adds the behavioral trait that these are 'cerradas' (closed) conversations, which is critical filtering information. However, it fails to disclose other expected behaviors: whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the phone number doesn't exist, or pagination limits (though the schema mentions 10 results per page).

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 well-structured with a title-like phrase, action statement, and usage context. It is appropriately concise with no redundant sentences. The trailing '[query]' appears to be metadata but does not significantly detract from the clarity.

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 complete coverage, the description adequately covers the input side. However, with no output schema provided and no annotations, the description should have briefly described the return value (e.g., list of conversation objects) to be complete. It meets minimum viability but leaves gaps regarding the response structure.

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 100% description coverage with clear examples (e.g., '+34616083226' for phone). The description mentions 'para un teléfono específico' but adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score applies.

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 'Obtiene las conversaciones cerradas del plugin de chat web' (gets closed web chat plugin conversations) using a specific phone number. It specifies the resource (closed conversations), scope (web chat plugin), and filter (phone). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like 'get_plugin_conversations' or 'get_chat_sessions', though the 'closed' qualifier helps.

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 a usage scenario: 'Útil cuando un agente quiere ver qué ha preguntado un cliente por el chat de la web' (useful when an agent wants to see what a client asked via web chat). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or what alternatives exist for non-closed conversations or other channels.

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