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. It discloses that the tool returns a 'combined state' (Estado combinado) of multiple components, which hints at the aggregation behavior. However, it lacks details on computational cost, caching behavior, or whether this queries live data vs. cached metrics.

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 (one sentence), but the trailing '[query]' appears to be metadata or a template placeholder that wasn't removed, creating confusion about whether this is a query operation or if additional query parameters are supported.

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 an output schema, the description adequately hints at return content by listing the three monitored dimensions (sessions, 24h activity, workflows). However, for a 'health check' tool with no annotations, it could disclose whether this returns pass/fail states, metrics, or detailed diagnostic data.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with the 'session_id' parameter described as 'ID de sesion de WhatsApp'. Since the schema is self-documenting, the baseline score applies. The description doesn't add critical context about what happens when session_id is omitted (likely returns health for all sessions), keeping it at baseline.

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 it performs a 'health check completo' (complete health check) and specifies the three components checked: session status, 24-hour message activity, and active workflows. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_whatsapp_status' or 'get_whatsapp_connection_status' by implying comprehensiveness, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 'get_whatsapp_status' or 'get_whatsapp_connection_status'. It doesn't indicate whether this is for routine monitoring, troubleshooting, or diagnostic scenarios, nor does it mention prerequisites.

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