WAzion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, does not describe pagination behavior (despite having page/limit parameters), and does not explain the return format or sorting order. The '[query]' artifact at the end appears to be noise or incomplete editing.

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 relatively short but structurally redundant ('Listar... — Lista...'). The '[query]' placeholder at the end detracts from clarity. While mostly efficient, the redundancy and artifact prevent a higher score.

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 tool with 11 filtering parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain date formats for `date_from`/`date_to`, expected values for `has_attachments` (boolean vs string), or how multiple filters interact. The lack of behavioral context (read-only, pagination) further reduces completeness given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual grouping by mentioning 'filtros por estado y cuenta' (filters by state and account), which loosely maps to the `filter` and `account_id` parameters, but does not add syntax details, format examples, or explain semantic relationships between parameters (e.g., how `search` differs from `from_filter`).

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 verb (Listar/Lista) and resource (hilos de email/email threads), and specifies the scope (de la tienda/from the store). It mentions key filtering capabilities (estado/cuenta - status/account). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `get_email_thread_detail` (single thread retrieval) or `list_email_accounts`.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_email_thread_detail` for fetching specific thread details, or `search_conversations` for broader conversation searches. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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