WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds the critical prerequisite about structured outputs being enabled and lists return components, but omits safety profile (read-only status), rate limits, or error behaviors that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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 suffers from front-loaded redundancy ('Analytics detallado' restates the tool name concept) and ends with an unexplained artifact '[query]'. However, the core content efficiently packs specific output types and requirements into a single sentence after the em-dash.

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 lack of output schema, the description effectively compensates by enumerating the structured output components (KPIs, sentiment, urgency, etc.) that will be returned. Combined with well-documented input parameters, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's data contract.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters (date_from, date_to, limit), the schema adequately documents inputs. The description provides baseline value by implying temporal scope through the analytics context, though it does not explicitly reference the parameters or add syntax guidance beyond the schema.

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 obtains detailed conversation analytics using structured outputs, listing specific deliverables (KPIs, intent distribution, sentiment, urgency, satisfaction trends). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'get_analytics' by explicitly mentioning the 'structured outputs' requirement and methodology twice, though it opens with slight redundancy ('Analytics detallado').

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 one important prerequisite ('Requiere que structured outputs este activado'), indicating when the tool is applicable. However, it fails to explicitly compare against sibling 'get_analytics' or state when to prefer this tool over standard analytics retrieval.

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