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 discloses the grouping behavior (by product) and plugin dependency, but omits safety characteristics (read-only), error behaviors, or what occurs when prerequisites aren't met.

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 sized and front-loaded with the action verb 'Lista'. However, it includes the artifact '[query]' at the end which appears to be a template placeholder or error that wastes space without adding meaning.

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 adequately mentions the grouping-by-product behavior. However, with four pagination/filtering parameters available, it could better prepare the agent for the paginated list structure or default behaviors.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description implies filtering capabilities matching the status and product_id parameters, but does not elaborate on pagination behavior or parameter interactions beyond the schema.

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 lists published FAQs from the Product Q&A plugin, grouped by product. The specific mention of 'publicadas' (published) distinguishes it from sibling tool get_product_qa_questions which likely handles unpublished/pending questions.

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?

It includes the critical prerequisite that the Product Q&A plugin must be configured/active, providing necessary context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_product_qa_questions or manage_faq.

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