WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only discloses that it returns exactly 3 suggestions. Missing: whether it calls external LLMs, how it handles insufficient conversation history, rate limits, caching behavior, or how time 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient length, though the '[query]' fragment appears to be extraneous markup or a placeholder that reduces clarity slightly.

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?

Tool has 8 parameters with time-window options and tone configuration, but description offers no behavioral context for these options. No output schema or annotations to supplement the minimal description. Should explain the time-based analysis window (days/hours vs last_n relationship).

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. Description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., doesn't explain that 'phone' identifies the conversation thread, or how 'tone' affects suggestion style beyond the enum values).

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?

States specific action (generates 3 suggestions) and resource (AI response suggestions), distinguishing from siblings like generate_email_draft. However, the bracketed '[query]' is confusing as no such parameter exists, and it doesn't clarify this is for WhatsApp/chat versus email channels.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus generate_email_draft, get_ai_summary, or other AI generation tools. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing conversation history requirements) or when to prefer specific tone/summary_type parameters.

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