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 mentions returning 'configuration and status' but fails to clarify the read-only nature, pagination behavior, or explain why time-based parameters (hours, period) exist for a configuration listing tool. The mismatch between the static description and temporal parameters creates 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?

The description is brief (two clauses) and front-loaded with the action verb. However, the '[query]' suffix appears to be a template artifact or unclear shorthand that wastes space without adding value. The structure is efficient but the content is insufficient for the complexity implied by the parameters.

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 4 parameters (including time-based filters suggesting complex behavior), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, the scope of data (all-time vs. filtered), or how the 'hours' and 'period' parameters interact with 'configuration' data.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage (baseline 3), the description actually creates semantic confusion. It frames the tool as listing static 'configuration,' but the parameters suggest temporal analytics (hours, period for statistics). The description fails to resolve this mismatch or explain the relationship between configuration data and time-based filtering.

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 tool lists installed plugins with configuration and status, using a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_plugin_stats' or 'get_chat_plugin_stats', and the trailing '[query]' appears to be a placeholder or formatting artifact that reduces clarity.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_plugin_stats' or 'configure_plugin_chat'. The description only states what the tool does without contextual advice on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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