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 includes the '[mutation]' tag indicating data modification, and specifies the data flow (CRM to marketing list). However, it omits critical behavioral details like duplicate handling, whether the operation is atomic, async/sync nature, or error behavior on partial failures.

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 as 'Action — Details [mutation]'. It front-loads the purpose and keeps the mutation indicator at the end. One minor redundancy exists between the tool name and the opening phrase 'Importar contactos desde CRM', but overall it is appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 import tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and data flow. However, given that this is a data migration tool with mutation potential, it lacks completeness regarding side effects, confirmation requirements, or return value semantics that would help an agent handle the response appropriately.

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 ('ID de la lista destino'), the baseline is 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the list_id as belonging to a 'lista de marketing masivo' (mass marketing list), clarifying the intended use case beyond the generic parameter description.

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 specific action (import), source (WAzion's internal CRM), and destination (mass marketing list). It distinguishes from siblings like 'import_contacts_from_platform' or 'import_contacts_from_conversations' by explicitly referencing the 'CRM interno de WAzion' as the source system.

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 the description implies usage through specifying the source (internal CRM) and destination (mass marketing list), it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling imports like 'import_contacts_manual' or 'import_marketing_contacts'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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