WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It successfully discloses the deduplication and unification behavior ('resultados unificados sin duplicados'), but fails to mention other critical behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or the specific structure/format of returned results.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the trailing '[query]' text appears to be a formatting artifact or placeholder that creates confusion rather than clarity, slightly undermining the otherwise efficient structure.

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 and annotations, the description provides only minimal completeness. It mentions that results are unified and deduplicated, but does not describe the return structure, pagination behavior (despite the 'limit' parameter), or what happens when no results are found. The 100% schema parameter coverage compensates somewhat, but behavioral context remains thin.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—only the cryptic '[query]' tag at the end hints at the primary parameter, but this is redundant with the 'required' field in the schema and lacks clarity. The description does not elaborate on how the 8 optional parameters interact with the unified search.

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 defines the tool as a global customer search across multiple data sources (CRM, contacts, conversations) and mentions the unification aspect. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'search_customers' or 'search_conversations', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over more specific search 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the available alternatives (search_customers, search_conversations, etc.). While the scope is described (all sources), the description lacks 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' instructions that would help an agent select appropriately among the numerous search siblings.

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