WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the business rule for what constitutes an unanswered conversation, but fails to disclose technical behaviors such as safety (read-only vs write), rate limits, or side effects. The verb 'Muestra' implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly confirm it.

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 front-loaded with the concept ('Conversaciones sin responder') followed immediately by the specific definition. It is appropriately brief. The trailing '[query]' tag is slightly cryptic and does not add clear value, preventing a perfect 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?

Given the moderate complexity (13 optional filter parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the retrieval purpose but does not contextualize the filtering capabilities or explain the return structure. With full schema coverage, parameter enumeration is unnecessary, but the absence of output documentation leaves a gap.

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 13 parameters, the structured schema carries the full semantic load. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance (e.g., explaining date format interactions or pagination logic), meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 explicitly defines the specific business logic of 'unanswered' (last message from client, no agent/AI response) using the verb 'Muestra' (Shows). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling conversation retrieval tools like get_recent_conversations or search_conversations by specifying the exact filter criteria applied.

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 alternatives such as search_conversations or get_conversations_summary. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusion criteria.

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