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 scope (shop-level) and specific provider examples (Google, Microsoft), but fails to indicate the read-only nature of the operation, expected return format, or whether connections include OAuth status/permissions.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action. However, it repeats the tool name ('List Calendar Connections — List...') and contains a trailing artifact '[query]' that appears to be noise or a formatting error, slightly reducing 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 (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic resource and scope. However, it lacks details about the return structure (what fields define a 'connection') and doesn't clarify behavioral traits that annotations would typically cover.

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 0 parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. With no parameters to document, there are no semantic gaps to fill between the schema and description.

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 it lists 'connected calendar providers (Google, Microsoft)' for the shop, distinguishing it from siblings like list_calendars (which would list calendar entities) by focusing on provider connections. However, it could explicitly contrast with similar tools like list_oauth_calendars or list_calendar_services.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_calendars, list_oauth_calendars, or link_oauth_calendar. It doesn't indicate prerequisites (e.g., checking connections before creating events) or when to prefer delete_calendar_connection.

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