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 of behavioral disclosure but fails to indicate whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Ver' but not explicit), the format of the returned prompt, or any rate limiting concerns.

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 brief but contains tautology ('Ver prompt actual' vs 'Muestra el prompt actual'). The '[query]' fragment appears to be a template placeholder or error that should have been removed, wasting the limited descriptive space.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., the prompt text, a structured object). It provides no information about the return value, leaving a significant gap for an agent trying to understand how to use the retrieved prompt.

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 zero parameters defined in the schema, the baseline score is 4. The description's inclusion of '[query]' is misleading noise given the empty input schema, but does not warrant dropping below baseline since no parameters actually require semantic explanation.

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 retrieves ('Ver'/'Muestra') the current AI prompt, distinguishing it from siblings like save_prompt, improve_prompt, restore_default_prompt, and get_prompt_history. However, the trailing '[query]' is confusing since the schema defines zero parameters, slightly marring clarity.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives like get_prompt_history (which retrieves past versions) or apply_prompt_instruction. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions for selecting it over related prompt-management tools.

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