WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as how many historical versions are returned, the format (diffs vs full text), or read-only safety. The '[query]' reference suggests a parameter that doesn't exist in the schema, creating uncertainty about inputs.

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 (one sentence) and front-loads the action, which is good. However, the unexplained '[query]' placeholder wastes interpretive effort since no parameters exist, slightly undermining the clarity without adding value.

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?

With no output schema provided, the description should explain what the history contains (timestamps, version IDs, content). It fails to do so. The mysterious '[query]' reference also leaves the input requirements ambiguous despite the empty schema.

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 tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty object). Per the baseline rules for zero-parameter tools, this scores a 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 uses specific verbs ('Ver'/'Muestra') and identifies the resource ('historial de prompts'/'versiones anteriores'), but the inclusion of '[query]' is confusing given the schema has zero parameters. It vaguely distinguishes from 'get_prompt' by mentioning history, but doesn't clarify scope or which prompt's history is retrieved.

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 provided on when to use this versus siblings like 'get_prompt', 'rollback_prompt', or 'restore_default_prompt'. No mention of prerequisites or workflow context (e.g., whether to use this before rolling back).

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