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. It discloses scope by stating it shows 'todos los archivos' (all files) and provides examples (PDFs, documents), implying a read-only list operation. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or return structure.

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, but the '[query]' placeholder at the end appears to be an editing artifact that wasn't removed, wasting space and creating ambiguity without adding value.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the core functionality. However, for a production tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context such as pagination behavior or typical response volume.

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 0 parameters, which typically warrants a baseline score of 4. However, the description contains a confusing '[query]' artifact at the end that suggests a non-existent parameter, potentially misleading the agent about filtering capabilities.

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 knowledge base files ('Listar archivos de base de conocimiento') and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_knowledge_snippets (snippets vs. files) and list_docqa_files (docqa vs. knowledge base). However, the trailing '[query]' artifact creates minor confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_docqa_files or list_knowledge_snippets, nor are there any prerequisites or conditions mentioned for its invocation.

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