WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose that this is a read-only operation, doesn't explain the pagination behavior (despite schema having limit/offset), and doesn't describe the return structure or any rate limits. Only notes that filtering is optional.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action verb, which is efficient. However, the '[query]' artifact appears to be an unedited placeholder or error that wastes semantic space and creates confusion 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?

For a 6-parameter tool with pagination support (limit/offset) and filtering capabilities, the description is insufficient. It fails to mention that results are paginated, doesn't describe what constitutes a 'notification' object, and doesn't explain the relationship between filtering by agent_id versus notification_id.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'filtros opcionales' which loosely corresponds to the filter/type parameters, but the '[query]' reference is misleading since no parameter bears that name. It adds no syntax details, validation rules, or examples beyond the 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?

The description states the basic action (list/obtain system notifications) but contains a confusing '[query]' reference that doesn't match any parameter name in the schema (parameters are 'filter', 'type', etc.). It also fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'list_calendar_notifications', leaving ambiguity about which notification domain this covers.

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?

Only mentions that filters are optional ('con filtros opcionales'). Provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'get_unread_notification_count', 'mark_notification_read', or 'delete_notification', nor does it indicate prerequisites or typical workflows.

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