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 and successfully discloses the state machine behavior (qr_pending requirement), prerequisite workflow, and return format ('Devuelve una URL de imagen'). It lacks minor details like rate limits or caching behavior, but covers the essential functional behavior comprehensively.

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 sized and front-loaded with the purpose statement. It logically progresses through prerequisites, alternatives, and return format. Minor deduction for the '[query]' artifact at the end which appears to be template metadata rather than descriptive content.

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 explicitly documents the return value ('URL de imagen') and demonstrates usage (''). It adequately covers the stateful complexity (pending vs connected vs missing session) and sibling relationships necessary for correct invocation.

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 defines zero parameters (empty object), establishing a baseline of 4 per the scoring rubric. The description appropriately contains no parameter documentation since none exist, though the trailing '[query]' artifact creates minor confusion without deducting from the 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 opens with a clear specific verb+resource pair ('Obtener QR de WhatsApp' / 'Obtiene el codigo QR de WhatsApp') and explicitly scopes the operation to a session-based workflow. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'connect_whatsapp' by stating this tool requires an existing session versus creating one.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use constraints ('Requiere que exista una sesion previa (estado qr_pending)'), explicit alternatives ('Si no hay sesion, usa connect_whatsapp primero'), and clear guidance for other states ('Si ya esta conectado, informa del estado'). This creates a complete decision tree for the agent.

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