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 but offers minimal behavioral context beyond the basic read operation. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, return structure, or error conditions.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action, but the '[query]' artifact at the end appears to be noise or a copy-paste error, reducing clarity and suggesting unfinished editing.

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 tool without an output schema, the description is minimally viable—it explains what is being listed. However, it fails to compensate for the lack of output schema by describing what data structure or fields are returned.

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% for the single assistant_id parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds implicit confirmation that files belong to an assistant, but provides no additional syntax, format details, or examples 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 clearly states the tool lists files ('archivos') uploaded to a Doc-QA assistant, distinguishing it from siblings like list_docqa_assistants. However, the trailing '[query]' fragment is confusing and slightly mars an otherwise specific verb+resource combination.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_docqa_detail for metadata vs file listing), nor are prerequisites like having a valid assistant_id mentioned.

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