WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions status filtering but fails to disclose read-only safety, pagination defaults/limits, result ordering, or whether returned snippets include full content or metadata only. The '[query]' suffix appears to be an artifact or placeholder adding confusion.

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?

Single sentence with em-dash is appropriately brief, but the trailing '[query]' appears to be a template artifact or placeholder that reduces clarity. Otherwise efficient length without redundant verbosity.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain return structure, pagination behavior, or field selection. It mentions filtering capabilities but leaves significant gaps in explaining the complete contract of the tool.

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 maps Spanish status labels to the filter parameter values, but adds no syntax details, example usage, or clarification on how multiple filters interact (AND vs OR logic).

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 it lists knowledge snippets with specific status filtering (pendiente, activo, en conflicto, obsoleto, rechazado), distinguishing it from single-item operations like get/update/delete_knowledge_snippet. However, it doesn't differentiate from list_knowledge_files or other knowledge-related list operations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_knowledge_files or get_knowledge_processing_status. No mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or when to prefer status filtering versus content searching.

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