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 burden. While it mentions 'current workload,' it fails to disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' prefix but not stated), what format the workload data takes, pagination behavior, or how the period/days parameters interact. The trailing '[query]' is ambiguous and potentially confusing.

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 appropriately brief (one sentence), but the trailing '[query]' appears to be a placeholder or formatting artifact that creates confusion. It does not clearly indicate whether this refers to query capabilities, parameter usage, or is simply incomplete text.

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?

With no output schema provided and three optional input parameters, the description should explain what the 'summary' contains (e.g., metrics included, aggregation level) and what default behavior occurs when no parameters are provided. It lacks this operational context.

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% with clear Spanish descriptions for all three parameters (agent_id, period, days). The description does not add semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining whether 'days' overrides 'period' or if they can be used together, but baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema documentation.

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 provides a team summary ('Resumen del equipo') with a general view of all agents and their current workload ('Vista general de todos los agentes con su carga de trabajo actual'). This distinguishes it from individual agent tools like get_agent_stats or list_agents by emphasizing aggregate team workload. However, it could better differentiate from similar summary tools like get_daily_summary.

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 versus alternatives like get_agent_performance, list_agents, or get_daily_summary. With all parameters being optional, it should specify when filtering by agent_id is appropriate versus retrieving the full team summary.

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