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 successfully adds context about what 'availability' entails (schedules, exceptions, blocks), but fails to explicitly declare read-only behavior, error handling (e.g., invalid calendar_id), or pagination limits. The '[query]' tag hints at read-only nature but is cryptic.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action. The em-dash structure effectively separates the title clause from the explanatory clause. Only the '[query]' tag at the end is potentially extraneous metadata, though it doesn't significantly detract from the 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?

For a single-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately explains the conceptual scope of what is returned (availability rules). However, lacking annotations, it should explicitly state the read-only nature and ideally mention that it returns data for the specified calendar_id only.

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 the calendar_id parameter fully described in the schema as 'ID del calendario'. The description mentions 'de un calendario' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional semantic context like format constraints, valid ranges, or where to obtain the ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 (list) and resource (calendar availability/rules) and enumerates specific rule types included (schedules, exceptions, blocks). It implicitly distinguishes from CRUD siblings (create/update/delete_calendar_availability) and from list_calendars by specifying 'availability rules' rather than calendars themselves.

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 get_calendar_settings or list_calendar_events. While the action is clear from the name, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining calendar_id from list_calendars) or exclusion criteria.

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