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 the mutation nature via '[mutation]' tag and identifies external systems involved (Shopify, WooCommerce). However, it lacks details on side effects (duplicate handling, overwrite behavior), error conditions, or return values that would help an agent handle the response.

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 the action front-loaded ('Importar contactos desde plataforma') followed by specific source details. It avoids verbosity while conveying the essential scope. The '[mutation]' tag at the end is slightly awkward but does not 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 tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context for an agent to understand the tool's function. It could be improved by mentioning error cases (e.g., if no ecommerce platform is connected) or success behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for its complexity level.

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% description coverage for the single 'list_id' parameter ('ID de la lista destino'). The description does not add additional semantic details about the parameter (e.g., examples, valid formats), so it appropriately sits at the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Importa' (Imports) + resource 'contactos de clientes' (customer contacts) + specific source 'plataforma ecommerce conectada (Shopify, WooCommerce, etc.)'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling import tools (import_contacts_from_crm, import_contacts_from_conversations, etc.) by specifying the ecommerce platform source.

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 'ecommerce platforms' as the source, helping agents select it when Shopify/WooCommerce integration is involved. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing it to the five sibling import tools (e.g., 'use this instead of import_contacts_from_crm when...') or prerequisites like requiring a connected ecommerce platform.

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