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 fails to state whether this is read-only, if it supports pagination, rate limits, or what the return structure looks like. The '[query]' tag is cryptic and does not adequately substitute for explicit behavioral documentation.

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, but the '[query]' fragment at the end appears to be template residue or an unclear categorization tag that adds no value. The em-dash structure is acceptable but the sentence following it is purely definitional without behavioral context.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description minimally suffices by indicating the tool returns 'appointment types/services'. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should ideally describe the return format (e.g., array of service objects with IDs/names) to be fully complete.

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% (calendar_id is described as 'Calendar ID'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional semantic value regarding the parameter's format, valid values, or how to obtain it, but the schema is sufficiently self-documenting for this simple case.

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 (appointment types/services configured for a calendar). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `list_calendars` (which lists calendars themselves, not services within them), and the trailing '[query]' fragment creates minor confusion.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_calendar_settings` or `create_calendar_service`. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid calendar_id from `list_calendars`) or when to prefer this over other calendar-related list operations.

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