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 establishes the domain (Q&A plugin questions vs. purchases/views) but lacks critical details: return format, whether results include product IDs or names, pagination behavior, or data freshness guarantees. It implies read-only behavior through the 'get' verb and 'muestra' (shows), but explicit confirmation would strengthen this.

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 efficiently brief (single sentence) and front-loads the concept. However, it suffers from inconsistent language mixing (Spanish phrase with English bracketed artifact "[query]") which appears to be a template remnant or formatting error, detracting from professional clarity.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the conceptual return value (top asked-about products). However, given the lack of annotations and incomplete schema, it should ideally specify the return structure (e.g., product IDs, question counts) or at minimum acknowledge that it returns ranked product data. As written, it is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.

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 coverage is exactly 50% (days is documented, limit is not). The description adds no information about either parameter—failing to explain that 'days' controls the lookback period or that 'limit' controls the top-N results. Since schema coverage is below the 80% threshold and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter, this falls short of adequate.

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 the most consulted/asked-about products ("Productos mas consultados") and specifies the data source is the Q&A plugin ("en el plugin Q&A"). This distinguishes it from general product search tools like search_products by specifying the Q&A context, though the mixed Spanish/English presentation and "[query]" artifact slightly reduce clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_product_qa_questions, get_product_qa_stats, or search_products. While the Q&A plugin mention provides implicit context, there are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives to guide selection.

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