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 of behavioral disclosure, yet it fails to declare the read-only nature explicitly, pagination behavior, or response structure. The notification type examples add minor behavioral context but insufficient transparency for a data retrieval tool.

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 efficiently combines a title fragment, explanatory clause, and examples in a single sentence structure. The trailing '[query]' tag appears to be metadata leakage but does not significantly detract from the overall brevity.

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 low complexity (one required integer parameter) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose but omits return value documentation. It meets minimum requirements but lacks richness expected for tools without annotation support.

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 its single calendar_id parameter ('ID del calendario'), establishing a baseline score. The description reinforces this parameter by referencing 'un calendario' but does not add syntax details or format constraints beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Listar' and identifies the resource as 'notificaciones de calendario' (calendar notifications). It distinguishes from sibling mutation tools (create_calendar_notification, update_calendar_notification, delete_calendar_notification) through the list verb, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the general list_notifications tool.

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 examples of notification types ('confirmaciones, recordatorios, etc.') which imply usage context but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or contrast with the general list_notifications sibling.

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