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 disclosure burden. While it indicates the tool retrieves 'all' campaigns (suggesting a comprehensive list), it fails to disclose whether results are paginated, rate limits, required authorization scopes, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated).

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 verb, but the inclusion of the '[query]' placeholder text wastes space and creates confusion. The em-dash structure effectively separates the action from the explanation.

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 rich ecosystem of campaign-related tools (create_campaign, update_campaign, delete_campaign, archive_campaign, etc.) and the lack of an output schema, the description should clarify return format, pagination, or relationships to other tools. It provides insufficient context for an agent to understand the full scope of the returned data.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions '[query]' at the end, which ambiguously references the 'status' parameter without explaining its semantics or valid values, adding no meaningful value beyond the schema's 'Filtrar por estado de campana'.

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/obtains marketing campaigns using specific verbs ('Listar', 'Obtiene'). However, it contains a placeholder artifact '[query]' at the end, and while 'todas' (all) implicitly distinguishes it from the singular 'get_campaign', it does not explicitly clarify when to use this versus other campaign retrieval siblings like 'get_campaign_logs' or 'export_campaign_csv'.

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 when-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided. The description does not indicate prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) or when to prefer this over 'get_campaign' (singular) or filtered exports. The implicit 'all' suggests bulk retrieval but offers no concrete guidance.

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