WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only operation, what data structure is returned, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description only states what is retrieved without explaining how it behaves.

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 at one sentence, but the inclusion of the '[query]' fragment at the end appears to be noise or a documentation error rather than intentional content, slightly undermining the 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?

For a simple two-parameter pagination tool without an output schema, the description minimally suffices by identifying the resource. However, it lacks clarification on the distinction between purchasing credits versus general credit history (given sibling tools) and does not describe the return format.

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 for its two parameters (page and limit), so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about the parameters, warranting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage scenarios.

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 purchase history specifically for 'creditos' (credits), providing both a verb ('Ver'/'Muestra') and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `get_credit_history`, and the trailing '[query]' appears to be a template artifact or placeholder that creates minor confusion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like `get_credit_history` or `get_credits_info`. There is no mention of pagination behavior, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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