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 but omits critical details: it doesn't state the tool is read-only (safe to call), doesn't explain pagination behavior despite having page/limit parameters, and doesn't clarify the output format or data freshness. The trailing '[query]' text is confusing and adds no value.

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 brief (one sentence plus fragment), but the trailing '[query]' appears to be an artifact or placeholder that creates confusion rather than clarity. The front-loaded Spanish verb phrase is appropriate, but the structure is marred by the unexplained bracketed term.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should disclose return structure and safety characteristics (read-only nature), but it does neither. While the 100% schema coverage handles parameter documentation, the lack of output disclosure and behavioral context leaves the definition incomplete for agent decision-making.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline score. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though it loosely references the default date range ('ultimos dias') implied by the from/to parameter defaults. It doesn't clarify the 'action' parameter choices beyond the schema's own 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 specifies retrieving 'creditos, tokens y costes' (credits, tokens, and costs) for recent days, which adds specificity beyond the tool name. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_usage_stats_detail', leaving ambiguity about which to use for detailed versus summary data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly the sibling 'get_usage_stats_detail'. While the 'action' parameter allows selecting 'summary' or 'detail', the description offers no criteria for choosing between them or when to prefer this tool over other analytics tools like 'get_analytics'.

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