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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get' prefix), how many topics are returned, whether results include frequency counts or percentages, or if the operation is resource-intensive. The scope is limited to 'conversations' but lacks temporal or volume context.

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 (single sentence with em-dash separator) and front-loaded with the key concept. However, the presence of the '[query]' artifact at the end detracts from clarity and suggests incomplete editing, preventing a higher score.

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 an analytics tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe the return format (e.g., ranked list with counts), the methodology for determining 'topics/intentions', or the maximum number of results returned. The 100% input schema coverage does not compensate for missing output documentation.

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 across all three parameters (days, period, date), the schema fully documents the inputs. The description adds no additional parameter context, syntax examples, or usage notes, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 common topics/intentions ('temas/intenciones mas comunes') from conversations, using a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling analytics tools like `get_analytics` or `get_conversation_analytics`, and the trailing '[query]' appears to be a formatting artifact or incomplete template variable that creates minor confusion.

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 is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_analytics`, `get_sentiment_analysis`, or `get_top_asked_products`. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent select this over other reporting tools.

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