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 of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the operation as a '[mutation]' and specifies the source (WhatsApp) and destination (marketing list), but fails to describe idempotency, duplicate handling, or whether the operation is synchronous/asynchronous.

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 consists of two segments separated by an em-dash that essentially repeat the same information ('Importar todos...' vs 'Importa todos...'). This redundancy prevents a higher score despite the overall brevity.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool, the description adequately covers the basic action but lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., handling of existing contacts in the list, duplicate creation policies) that would be necessary for safe invocation without additional documentation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with 'ID de la lista destino' clearly described. The description adds context that this is a 'marketing' list, which aligns with the parameter purpose, but does not add significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 the tool imports all WhatsApp conversation contacts to a marketing list, using specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'import_contacts_from_conversations' (without 'all'), relying solely on the tool name to convey the scope difference.

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 the numerous sibling import tools (e.g., 'import_contacts_from_conversations', 'import_contacts_from_crm'). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or explicit alternatives mentioned.

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