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 successfully discloses the privacy constraint (agent-only visibility), which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it omits other behavioral details such as error handling when thread_id is invalid, return format, or pagination behavior.

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 sized at three sentences and front-loaded with the action. The em-dash effectively separates the title clause from the explanation. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be noise or a template artifact, slightly detracting from an otherwise clean 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?

For a single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides essential domain context (internal vs. external visibility) that helps the agent understand the data sensitivity. While it could benefit from describing the return structure or error cases, it covers the critical privacy aspect needed for safe operation.

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 the thread_id parameter ('ID del hilo'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'de un hilo de email' which aligns with the parameter, but does not add additional semantic details like format constraints, examples, or validation rules beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verbs 'Listar' and 'Obtiene' with the resource 'notas internas de un hilo de email', clearly distinguishing this as a read operation for internal notes. It differentiates from siblings like add_email_note and delete_email_note by explicitly stating the list/get action and scope.

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 implicit usage guidance by clarifying that notes are 'visibles solo para agentes, no para el cliente', indicating when this tool is appropriate (for internal context only). However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance or explicit comparison to siblings like get_email_thread_detail.

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