WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden but only adds the '[mutation]' tag indicating a write operation. It lacks details on idempotency (can you link the same calendar twice?), side effects (does it trigger immediate sync?), reversibility, or error scenarios.

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?

Extremely concise single-line description with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action title, followed by the target resource and scope (Google/Microsoft), and behavioral tag ([mutation]). Every element earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a 3-parameter linking operation but missing behavioral context expected for a mutation tool without annotations. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description should clarify what 'linking' entails (e.g., persistence, sync behavior) given the lack of structured metadata.

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 minor value by specifying 'Google/Microsoft' as examples of external calendars, which contextualizes the external_calendar_id parameter, but the schema already adequately documents all three parameters including their OAuth nature.

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 links external calendars (Google/Microsoft) via OAuth to the store using specific verbs ('Vincular/Vincula'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_calendar_service or delete_calendar_connection by specifying 'OAuth' and 'externo', though it could clarify what 'la tienda' refers to in this context.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_oauth_calendars (to discover available calendars) or create_calendar_service. Missing prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing OAuth connection before use) or sequencing instructions.

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