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. It successfully indicates the tool retrieves current usage and plan information, but fails to explicitly state the read-only/safe nature of the operation, potential error states (e.g., no plan configured), or whether the data is real-time versus cached.

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?

While brief, the description contains the unexplained artifact '[query]' which appears to be a placeholder or formatting error that does not earn its place. The structure is front-loaded with the action ('Ver estado') but ends with noise that could mislead agents into thinking query parameters are supported.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning the two key data points returned (usage and plan). However, it lacks detail on the return format, structure, or what constitutes 'current' (e.g., real-time vs daily aggregation), leaving gaps for an agent attempting to interpret results.

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 has 0 parameters (empty object), which per the guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description neither adds nor detracts from this since no parameters are mentioned (aside from the potentially confusing '[query]' artifact which does not correspond to actual schema properties).

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 displays current storage usage and active plan ('Muestra el uso actual de almacenamiento y el plan activo'), using specific verbs and identifying the resource. However, the unexplained '[query]' fragment at the end creates minor confusion and the Spanish language may reduce clarity in an English-dominant context, though the meaning remains discernible.

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 tool versus sibling alternatives like `get_usage_stats`, `get_credits_info`, or `get_storage_files`. There is no mention of prerequisites, rate limiting considerations, or scenarios where this specific storage view is preferred.

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