WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds valuable context about return data composition (service counts and upcoming events) but omits read-only confirmation, pagination limits, cache behavior, and error handling scenarios that would help the agent understand operational constraints.

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 verb. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be an editing artifact or incomplete parameter reference that serves no clear purpose and slightly degrades structural integrity.

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 absence of an output schema, the description partially compensates by describing what data is returned (service/event counts). However, the language mismatch with the English tool ecosystem and lack of guidance on result limits or calendar visibility rules leave the description minimally adequate rather than 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?

The tool accepts 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty object), establishing a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation, though the '[query]' text confusingly implies parameter functionality that doesn't exist.

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 identifies the action (list calendars) and scope (all available calendars with service counts and upcoming events). However, the Spanish language contrasts sharply with English sibling tool names, potentially confusing an English-speaking agent, and the trailing '[query]' fragment suggests parameters that don't exist in the schema.

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 explicit guidance provided on when to select this tool versus siblings like get_calendar_settings, list_calendar_events, or list_calendar_services. No mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or when to prefer calendar-specific list operations over global search.

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