WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds value by disclosing that roles are returned ('con sus roles'), which compensates partially for the missing output schema. However, it omits safety traits (read-only, idempotent), error behaviors, and pagination details.

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 em-dash structure separates title from description effectively, but the trailing '[query]' appears to be metadata noise or a placeholder that doesn't serve the agent. The first clause 'Listar agentes de calendario' partially restates the tool name.

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 tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the conceptual input (calendar_id) and output (agents with roles). However, given the rich sibling ecosystem (assign/unassign calendar agents), it misses opportunity to contextualize this as the read counterpart to those mutation tools.

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 coverage is 100% with 'calendar_id' described as 'ID del calendario'. The description reinforces this with 'un calendario especifico' but adds no additional semantic details (e.g., where to obtain this ID, format constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.

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 lists agents assigned to a specific calendar 'con sus roles' (with their roles), providing specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from the generic 'list_agents' sibling by specifying calendar-specific assignment, though the '[query]' tag is cryptic noise.

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 versus 'list_agents' or 'list_whatsapp_agents', nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid calendar_id from 'list_calendars'). Usage must be inferred from the parameter requirement alone.

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