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 discloses what data is returned (metrics types) but omits behavioral traits like read-only safety, whether data is cached or real-time, pagination limits, or time granularity of aggregations. The '[query]' tag hints at query semantics but 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 appropriately concise with a clear em-dash structure front-loading the domain (WhatsApp Workflow Statistics). Every clause earns its place. Minor deduction for the unexplained '[query]' tag at the end which adds ambiguity without context.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the metric categories returned but lacks detail on response structure, data granularity, or whether metrics are calculated per-workflow or account-wide. Sufficient for basic tool selection but incomplete for full operational context.

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 adequately documents all 5 parameters (period, date range, pagination). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though mentioning 'peak hours' implicitly validates the time-based parameters. Baseline score appropriate given schema completeness.

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 identifies the resource (WhatsApp Workflow Statistics) and specific metrics retrieved (message volume, execution stats, peak hours, performance metrics). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_whatsapp_workflow_logs' by emphasizing aggregate statistics rather than individual records, though it could be strengthened by explicitly stating 'aggregated' or 'summary' metrics.

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 related siblings like 'get_whatsapp_workflow_activity' or 'get_whatsapp_workflow_logs'. It does not clarify whether this is for real-time monitoring, historical reporting, or dashboard population.

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