WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses basic scope behavior (global vs. specific). It fails to mention return format, whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or how time-based parameters (days/hours/last_n) interact.

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 core purpose. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be template pollution or an editing artifact that creates confusion 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?

For an 8-parameter analytical tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of what the tool returns, how the time-window parameters (days, hours, last_n) interact, or what the summary_type enum values imply for output structure.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description repeats the phone parameter's omission behavior ('Sin phone...') which is already documented in the schema, but adds no additional semantics for other parameters or their relationships.

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 shows 'evolucion del sentimiento a lo largo del tiempo' (evolution of sentiment over time), distinguishing it from point-in-time analysis tools like get_sentiment_analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify when to choose this over its sibling.

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?

It provides specific guidance that omitting the 'phone' parameter returns a global trend across all conversations ('Sin phone muestra tendencia global'). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance relative to get_sentiment_analysis or other analytics tools.

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