WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose what the logs contain (execution status, errors, timestamps), pagination behavior, data retention limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'obtiene'). The mysterious '[query]' artifact at the end is unexplained.

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 relatively compact and front-loaded with the key action and resource, but the trailing '[query]' appears to be a template artifact that reduces clarity. Without this artifact, it would be appropriately concise.

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 presence of multiple similar siblings (activity, stats, generic logs), 5 parameters with pagination, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks differentiation from related tools and fails to explain what constitutes a 'workflow log' versus other data types.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'filtros de fecha' (date filters) which aligns with the period/from/to parameters, but adds no semantic clarification on parameter interactions (e.g., whether 'period' and 'from/to' are mutually exclusive) or usage examples.

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 obtains execution history ('historial de ejecuciones') for WhatsApp Auto workflows and mentions date filtering. It distinguishes itself from generic workflow tools by specifying 'WhatsApp Auto', though it doesn't clarify the difference between 'logs', 'activity', and 'stats' sibling tools.

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?

While it mentions date filtering capability, it provides no guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like 'get_whatsapp_workflow_activity' or 'get_whatsapp_workflow_stats', nor does it explain the relationship between the date parameters (period vs from/to) or pagination requirements.

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