WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. It mentions time filtering support but fails to explain pagination behavior (despite having 'page' parameter), default return behavior when no parameters are provided (returns last 30 days based on schema defaults), return format, or rate limiting.

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 brief (one sentence plus fragment) and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it contains an unexplained artifact '[query]' at the end, which appears to be a template placeholder or error that should be removed.

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 5 optional parameters (0 required), pagination support, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the all-optional parameter design, default query behavior, or pagination strategy needed to retrieve complete datasets, leaving agents to infer usage patterns from schema defaults alone.

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, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely confirming that time period filters are supported ('Soporta filtros por periodo de tiempo'). It does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., date_from/date_to priority over period) that the schema already documents.

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 shows Product Q&A questions ('Muestra las preguntas sobre productos') with specific resource identification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_product_qa_faqs (likely for published FAQs) or get_product_qa_stats (likely for metrics), relying solely on the tool name to distinguish intent.

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 mentions time period filtering capability but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to retrieve raw questions vs. FAQs) or prerequisites. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are provided despite having closely related sibling tools.

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