WAzion MCP Server

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It partially compensates by previewing the returned data fields (clients, intent, products, outcomes), which helps given the lack of output schema. However, it omits safety characteristics (read-only nature), rate limits, pagination behavior details, or latency expectations that would be critical for agent operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, it contains a suspicious '[query]' artifact at the end that appears to be a placeholder or rendering error, preventing it from being perfectly clean. The em-dash structure efficiently separates the title from the description.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It compensates for the missing output schema by listing the data fields returned, but could be strengthened by mentioning the pagination behavior (20 results per page) or the optional nature of all parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description conceptually references filterable fields (intent level, outcome, product) that map to schema parameters, reinforcing their semantic meaning, but adds no syntax guidance, format examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema already provides.

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 lists recent smart follow-up actions and enumerates the specific data fields returned (contacted clients, intent level, mentioned product, outcome, sent message). It distinguishes from siblings like get_smart_followup_config (configuration) and get_smart_followup_stats (aggregated statistics) by focusing on individual activity logs. However, the trailing '[query]' artifact slightly obscures the ending.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_smart_followup_stats (aggregated metrics) or trigger_smart_followup (initiating actions). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or alternative recommendations provided.

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