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. It successfully identifies the read-only nature (using 'Ver'/'Muestra' - View/Shows) and enumerates what data is returned. However, it omits details about potential rate limits, caching behavior, or error scenarios.

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 and front-loaded with the action ('Ver datos de referidos'). The em-dash structure effectively separates the summary from the details. The '[query]' tag at the end is slightly awkward given the schema has no parameters, but doesn't significantly detract from the overall clarity.

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 parameter-less retrieval tool, the description adequately compensates for the lack of output schema by listing the key data categories returned (referrals, commissions, payment status). It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what information will be available upon invocation.

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), which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description requires no additional parameter clarification since there are none to document.

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 displays referral data including user referrals, pending/paid commissions, and payment request status. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `generate_referral_code` (which creates codes) and `request_referral_payout` (which initiates payouts) by specifying this is for viewing existing data.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly state 'use this when...' or name alternatives, the specific data points listed (commissions, payment status) provide implicit guidance on when to select this tool over action-oriented siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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