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 but offers minimal information. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'list'), mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what occurs when no scheduled emails exist. The trailing '[query]' text is unexplained and potentially confusing.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. However, the trailing '[query]' fragment appears to be an artifact or placeholder that adds no value, slightly undermining the otherwise clean structure.

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 presence of 7 parameters and numerous sibling tools with overlapping functionality (list_scheduled_messages, list_email_drafts, list_email_threads), the description is too minimal. It fails to clarify the relationship between 'scheduled' emails versus drafts or messages, and does not hint at the return structure despite having no output schema.

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% description coverage with clear Spanish descriptions for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'Filtrar por remitente', 'Debe ser scheduled'). Since the schema fully documents parameters including the required 'filter' constraint, the description does not need to compensate, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 scheduled emails and specifies they are 'programados para enviarse en el futuro' (scheduled to be sent in the future), providing specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_scheduled_messages' (which likely handles non-email channels like WhatsApp/SMS), leaving potential ambiguity about when to use which list tool.

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_email_drafts' (drafts vs scheduled) or 'list_scheduled_messages' (cross-channel distinction). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers mentioned.

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