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 discloses the return data structure and fields, and implies a read-only operation ('listar'). However, it omits pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether 'todos los agentes' (all agents) is truly unbounded or paginated.

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 mostly efficient as a single sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. However, the trailing '[query]' token appears to be a documentation artifact that wastes space and creates confusion, as the schema defines no parameters.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately compensates by listing the returned fields. However, for a 'list all' operation with zero input parameters, it should clarify pagination behavior, result limits, or whether the response is truly exhaustive.

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 contains zero parameters (empty object). Per guidelines, this establishes a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, though the trailing '[query]' appears to be a template artifact.

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 verb (listar/list), resource (agentes/agents), and return format (JSON). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_agents' by specifying JSON format and enumerating the complete data fields returned (name, email, phone, color, permissions, PIN status).

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 JSON format implies a use case, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus the sibling 'list_agents'. It does not state prerequisites, filtering limitations, or explicitly name the alternative tool.

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