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. While the verbs 'consultar' and 'obtiene' imply a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm safety, idempotency, or side effects, though it does disclose what data is retrieved.

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 slight redundancy between 'Consultar' and 'Obtiene'. The trailing '[query]' appears to be an artifact or formatting error that detracts from 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?

While the description lists key return fields (language, credits, basic configuration), it lacks detail on the response structure or format given the absence of an output schema. For a zero-parameter tool, this provides minimum viable context but could specify data types or nesting.

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, establishing a baseline score per the evaluation rubric. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, though the '[query]' artifact creates minor confusion without actual schema impact.

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 obtains the current store status and specifies the returned data fields (language, credits, basic configuration), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_credits_info or get_ecommerce_sync_status. However, the inclusion of '[query]' at the end is confusing and potentially misleading given the empty input schema.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this general status tool versus more specific alternatives like get_credits_info or get_ecommerce_sync_status. There are no stated prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria for its use.

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