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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable domain context about priority ordering behavior, but fails to disclose operational traits like whether results are paginated, the response structure, or read-only safety guarantees that agents need when no annotations exist.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, efficiently structured in two sentences plus a title fragment. The content is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the '[query]' suffix appears to be extraneous metadata or a placeholder that slightly detracts from the finish.

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 tool has zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials by specifying it returns all configured rules and explains their operational context (priority ordering). For a simple list operation, this is sufficiently complete, though explicit mention of return structure would improve it given the missing output schema.

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, which establishes a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation. Note: The trailing '[query]' appears to be a template artifact but does not indicate actual parameters given the empty 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all automatic email rules configured for the store ('Lista todas las reglas automaticas de email configuradas para la tienda'). The verb 'Listar' and resource 'reglas de email' are specific, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_email_rule, update_email_rule, and delete_email_rule through the explicit list operation.

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 domain context that rules apply to incoming emails in priority order ('se aplican a los emails entrantes en orden de prioridad'), which hints at why one might use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, or prerequisites like needing specific permissions to view rules.

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