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. It discloses the scope ('todas las cuentas' - all accounts) and return structure (accounts with assigned agents), implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks explicit safety confirmation, rate limits, or pagination behavior that would be necessary given the absence of annotations.

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 with two efficient sentences front-loaded with the action. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be an artifact or placeholder that adds no semantic value, slightly detracting from the structure.

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 (no parameters, no nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials by specifying what data is returned (email accounts with assigned agents). It meets the minimum viable standard for this tool type.

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 contains zero parameters (empty object), and the context signals confirm 0 params with 100% schema coverage. According to the baseline rules for zero-parameter tools, this receives a default score of 4.

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 email accounts and specifies the return content ('Devuelve todas las cuentas... con sus agentes asignados'). It uses a specific verb (Listar) and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_email_accounts', which creates ambiguity about which listing tool to use.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_email_account' (singular) or 'get_email_accounts'. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for invocation.

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