WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clarifies supported plugin types (chat, product-qa, doc-qa) but omits key behavioral details: output format (HTML snippet? JavaScript? iframe?), idempotency, or whether this triggers any server-side registration. Adequate but incomplete for a tool returning unstructured data without output schema.

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?

Efficient two-clause structure: purpose front-loaded ('Genera el codigo...'), followed by usage condition. Minor artifact '[query]' at end slightly detracts, but overall no wasted sentences and appropriate length for tool complexity.

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 no output schema exists, the description should ideally specify what the return value contains (HTML snippet, script tag, etc.). It identifies the tool generates 'embed code' but omits format details. Sufficient for basic tool selection but leaves invocation ambiguity regarding the actual payload returned.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with clear enum mapping. The description reinforces the plugin type options ('Chat Web, Product Q&A o Doc Q&A') in the usage clause, but does not add semantic details beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no guidance on selection criteria). Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Genera'/'Obtener') and resource ('codigo embed de plugin'/'embed code'), clearly stating it retrieves installation code. It distinguishes from sibling configuration tools (configure_plugin_chat, configure_plugin_productqa) by focusing narrowly on code generation for installation purposes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Usalo cuando el usuario necesite el codigo para instalar Chat Web, Product Q&A o Doc Q&A en su web.' Provides clear contextual trigger. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, though the specificity of the use case implies boundaries.

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