WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether this is read-only (implied by 'Ver' but not explicit), what specific statistics are returned (counts, trends, response rates), time-range handling, or any rate limits. The '[query]' artifact at the end is confusing given the empty input 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?

The description is appropriately brief with two clauses separated by an em-dash, but the trailing '[query]' appears to be a placeholder or formatting artifact that creates confusion rather than value. This reduces an otherwise efficient structure.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should ideally characterize what statistics are returned (e.g., volume metrics, unanswered counts, popular products). It mentions 'estadisticas' generally but does not specify the data scope or format, leaving agents uncertain about what they will receive.

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 contains zero parameters (empty object). Per the scoring guidelines, with 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4. There are no parameters requiring semantic clarification 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 'Ver estadisticas' (views statistics) for the Product Q&A plugin, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_product_qa_questions and get_product_qa_faqs by explicitly mentioning 'estadisticas' (statistics) rather than individual questions or FAQs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_product_qa_questions (for individual questions) or get_top_asked_products. It does not specify whether this is for aggregate analytics, dashboard reporting, or specific time-range analysis.

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