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 partially compensates by listing what statistics are returned (today's messages, executions, 7-day volume), giving insight into the output format. However, it lacks disclosure on safety (read-only status), rate limits, or error behaviors.

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 efficiently structured with a title-like prefix and concise explanation. It front-loads the action and lists specific metrics without verbosity. The trailing '[query]' appears to be an artifact but doesn't significantly detract from clarity.

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 low complexity (1 required parameter) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the returned data categories (today's messages, executions, 7-day volume). For a simple retrieval tool, this provides sufficient context for 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'sesión específica de WhatsApp' which aligns with the 'session_id' parameter, but doesn't add syntax details, validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('Ver', 'Obtiene') and clearly identifies the resource (workflow statistics for a specific WhatsApp session). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_whatsapp_workflow_stats' by emphasizing the 'sesión específica' scope, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative 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?

The description implies usage context by specifying this is for session-specific data ('para una sesión específica'), which helps identify when to use it versus general workflow stats tools. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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