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 offers no details beyond the basic listing function. It does not disclose whether results are paginated, if there are rate limits, what happens with large date ranges, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 uses a redundant 'Listar eventos de calendario — Lista eventos...' structure that restates the tool's purpose twice in slightly different forms. While brief, the inclusion of '[query]' at the end appears to be an artifact or incomplete thought that disrupts the professional structure.

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 presence of the similarly named sibling `list_calendar_events` and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description should explain the specific use case for this '_ops' variant and what distinguishes it. The current description leaves critical gaps regarding tool selection, behavioral constraints, and response format.

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 four parameters, clearly documenting the date format and filter purposes without needing extensive description text. The description mentions filtering by agent or phone but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool lists calendar events for a date range with filtering by agent or phone, clarifying the basic action. However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool `list_calendar_events`, creating ambiguity about which variant to use. The trailing '[query]' appears to be a placeholder or formatting artifact that detracts from clarity.

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 the similar `list_calendar_events` sibling or other calendar operations. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent determine when this specific tool is the appropriate choice.

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