WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions analyzing incoming/outgoing messages, it fails to disclose the return format (aggregated counts? averages? percentiles?), pagination behavior, data retention limits, or whether this includes failed/undelivered messages. The trailing '[query]' artifact suggests incomplete template editing.

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 (two clauses separated by em-dash), but the trailing '[query]' tag appears to be a template artifact or placeholder that wasn't removed, slightly reducing clarity. Front-loading is adequate with the topic stated first.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what data structure and metrics are returned (e.g., hourly buckets, average response times, message counts). The ambiguity between 'response time stats' (name) and 'message distribution' (description) remains unresolved, leaving the agent uncertain about the actual behavioral output.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage ('Dias a analizar' and 'ID de la sesión WhatsApp'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add parameter syntax details, validation rules, or examples beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema 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 clearly states it shows the 'hourly distribution of incoming and outgoing WhatsApp messages' (distribucion horaria de mensajes entrantes y salientes), which is specific. However, it conflicts with the tool name 'get_whatsapp_response_time_stats'—response times versus message volume distribution are different metrics. It also fails to distinguish from siblings like get_whatsapp_message_logs or get_busiest_hours.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_whatsapp_message_logs or get_whatsapp_conversation_history. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a connected WhatsApp session) or when not to use it. The only implicit context is the Spanish language suggesting regional use.

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