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 of behavioral disclosure. It establishes the OAuth context and supported providers (Google/Microsoft) but omits critical details like read-only status, pagination behavior, and return format that would be essential for safe operation.

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 brief but suffers from redundancy by repeating the listing action ('Listar calendarios OAuth — Lista...'). It also contains a stray '[query]' artifact at the end, indicating formatting or placeholder errors that reduce clarity.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the input purpose but fails to describe the expected return structure (calendar list format) or error conditions. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this omission creates operational gaps.

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 100% coverage with connection_id fully described as 'ID de la conexion OAuth'. The description references 'una conexion OAuth' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no validation rules, format examples, or semantic constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'calendarios OAuth', and specifically mentions 'Google/Microsoft' providers which distinguishes it from generic calendar tools. The phrase 'para vincular' hints at the linking workflow context.

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 phrase 'para vincular' implies this tool is used prior to linking calendars, providing some contextual usage hint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like link_oauth_calendar or list_calendars, and provides no exclusion criteria.

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