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. While it mentions returning 'complete messages,' it fails to disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, what happens if the session_id is invalid, or the structure/format of the returned message data. For a retrieval tool without an output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 single-sentence structure with an em-dash is appropriately brief, but the trailing '[query]' token appears to be noise or a template error that reduces clarity and suggests incomplete editing.

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 simple single-parameter lookup tool, the description identifies the core retrieval function. However, given the absence of an output schema, the description should better characterize the expected return value (e.g., array of message objects, message format), which is only vaguely implied by 'mensajes completos.'

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, clearly defining `session_id` as the chat session ID. The description implies usage (retrieving a specific conversation) but adds no additional syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides, warranting a baseline score.

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 'Muestra los mensajes completos' (shows complete messages) from a 'conversacion del plugin de chat web' (web chat plugin conversation), identifying the specific resource and distinguishing it from generic conversation tools. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be a template artifact or placeholder that creates confusion, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like `get_plugin_conversations`.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus similar siblings such as `get_conversation_detail` (generic CRM conversations), `get_plugin_conversations` (likely a list view), or `get_chat_sessions`. No mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or error conditions.

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