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 only specifies that drafts are 'pending sending' without clarifying pagination, result limits, sorting order, or return structure. It does not confirm whether this is a read-only operation or disclose any rate limits, though the verb 'Listar' implies it is non-destructive.

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 compact at roughly one sentence and front-loads the core action ('Listar borradores'), respecting conciseness principles. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be a placeholder or metadata that wastes space without adding semantic value, and the extreme brevity leaves critical gaps given the lack of annotations.

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 7 filtering parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is insufficiently complete for the operation's complexity. It fails to explain the required 'filter' parameter constraint (which must equal 'drafts'), describe the return format, or clarify how the filtering parameters interact, leaving significant documentation gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters (including filter, from_filter, and has_attachments with Spanish descriptions), so the schema adequately documents the filtering syntax. The description adds no parameter-specific context or usage examples, but meets the baseline expectation given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 'Listar borradores de email' and 'Muestra los borradores de email pendientes de envio,' providing a clear verb (list/show) and resource (email drafts) with state context (pending sending). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like `list_scheduled_emails` or `list_email_threads`, which could cause confusion about which tool to use for draft-related queries.

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 offers no guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives such as `generate_email_draft` (for creating drafts) or `get_email_thread_detail` (for viewing sent messages). There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow recommendations to help the agent decide when invocation is appropriate.

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