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 of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, what determines 'upcoming' versus historical events, or the format of returned data. The term 'upcoming' suggests filtering not explicitly documented in the schema.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the action. However, the bracketed '[query]' notation is cryptic and wastes space without clarifying which parameter it refers to or its syntax.

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 simple list operation with a flat schema and no output schema, the description covers the minimum viable information. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should ideally disclose that this is a safe read operation and hint at the return structure (e.g., list of event objects).

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters (from, to, status). The description references 'date range' (mapping to from/to) but cryptically denotes the status filter as '[query]' without explaining the filtering semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness, with minimal additional context provided.

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 states the core action ('List') and resource ('Calendar Events'/'appointments/events') clearly. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from the sibling 'list_calendar_events_ops', leaving ambiguity about which calendar view or permission level this tool accesses.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_calendar_events_ops' or 'get_calendar_settings'. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or when to prefer date-range filtering versus other search methods.

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