WAzion MCP Server

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clarifies the scope (unsubscribed from mass mailings specifically, distinguishing from WhatsApp opt-outs), but fails to disclose safety profile (read-only vs destructive), return format, pagination limits, or potential errors. The '[query]' artifact at the end appears to be template residue.

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 compact with two clear Spanish phrases front-loading the purpose. However, it includes a trailing '[query]' artifact that appears to be copy-paste residue, slightly diminishing the score. Otherwise efficient with no redundant 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?

For a 4-parameter list retrieval tool with fully documented schema parameters, the description adequately identifies the resource type. However, lacking an output schema, the description should ideally characterize the returned data structure or pagination behavior, which it does not provide.

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 (page, search, date_from, date_to all documented), the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic context about parameter interactions (e.g., that search filters phone numbers) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 obtains a list of contacts who unsubscribed from mass mailings ('envios masivos'), using specific verbs ('Ver', 'Obtiene') and identifying the resource (unsubscribed contacts). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'remove_unsubscribed_bulk' or 'list_whatsapp_optout' in the text itself, relying on the tool name for contrast.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_unsubscribed_bulk' or 'list_whatsapp_optout'. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusion criteria mentioned.

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