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 for behavioral disclosure. It compensates partially by listing the specific statistical outputs (conversion funnel, response rates, etc.), giving insight into return values. However, it lacks safety declarations (read-only status), pagination behavior details, or rate limiting information.

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 core purpose. The structure (title em-dash specific metrics list) is efficient. Minor deduction for the trailing '[query]' artifact which appears to be a placeholder or formatting error that adds no 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?

Given 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately compensates by detailing what statistical data is returned. However, it misses opportunity to clarify that all parameters are optional, explain pagination mechanics (page parameter), or note time-range defaults.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed Spanish descriptions for all 8 parameters (period, date_from/date_to, page, filters). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema documentation. Baseline 3 applies.

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 Smart Follow-up statistics for sales recovery and lists specific metrics returned (conversion funnel, response rate, products mentioned, performance by attempt, omission reasons). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like `get_smart_followup_logs` (individual events) versus this aggregated stats view.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_smart_followup_logs` (for individual records) or `trigger_smart_followup` (to initiate actions). No prerequisites or filtering recommendations are mentioned despite having 8 optional parameters.

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