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 fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the response structure looks like. The trailing '[query]' text is an unexplained artifact that adds confusion about the tool's interface.

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?

While brief, the description contains a structural artifact '[query]' at the end that appears to be a placeholder or error, reducing clarity. The mix of Spanish ('Estadisticas', 'Metricas') with English technical terms ('Product Q&A', 'plugins') creates minor inconsistency, and the em-dash separation doesn't effectively organize the information.

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?

The description mentions the specific metrics returned (questions, visitors, most consulted products) which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, it omits details about response structure, pagination (despite the 'limit' parameter), or time-series formatting that would help an agent interpret results.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage (plugin_type, limit, and hours have Spanish descriptions; period relies on enum values), the schema adequately documents parameters. The description adds no supplementary parameter guidance (e.g., valid plugin_type values, limit defaults), meeting the baseline expectation for well-schematized tools.

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 states it retrieves plugin statistics ('Estadisticas de plugins') and lists specific metrics (questions, visitors, most consulted products). However, it confusingly focuses only on 'Product Q&A' metrics despite the generic tool name 'get_plugin_stats', and the presence of the dedicated sibling tool 'get_product_qa_stats' creates ambiguity about whether this tool is generic or Product Q&A-specific.

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 specific sibling alternatives like 'get_product_qa_stats', 'get_chat_plugin_stats', or 'get_plugin_chat_sessions'. Given the confusing overlap in functionality suggested by the description, explicit differentiation is critically needed but absent.

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