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 fails to specify read-only safety, pagination behavior, data retention limits, or the structure/format of returned messages. It only states the basic action without operational 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 and front-loaded with the action. It uses a dash structure that efficiently separates the function name from its explanation. The trailing '[query]' tag is slightly awkward but doesn't significantly impede 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 two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core purpose but has clear gaps: it doesn't describe the return value structure (message format, metadata) or error conditions (e.g., phone not found). It meets minimum viability but could be more informative given the lack of output schema.

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, the schema fully documents both parameters (phone format with country code example, limit range). The description adds minimal semantic value by reinforcing that the phone number is the query target ('telefono especifico'), meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 retrieves WhatsApp conversation history using specific verbs ('Ver', 'Muestra') and identifies the resource (message history). It specifies the phone number constraint ('con un telefono especifico'), providing scope. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like get_whatsapp_message_logs or get_conversation_detail.

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 (e.g., get_conversation_detail for non-WhatsApp channels, or get_whatsapp_message_logs for system logs). No prerequisites (like WhatsApp connection status) are mentioned.

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