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 and successfully discloses the return payload composition (id, session info, phone, message text, etc.). However, it omits pagination behavior details despite having a 'page' parameter, and does not mention rate limits or caching behavior.

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 bilingual structure ('Listar mensajes programados — Lists...') efficiently serves both languages without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by return value enumeration and a query type indicator. Every clause conveys distinct information.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately compensates by enumerating returned fields. However, it should mention that results are paginated (given the 'page' parameter exists) and clarify whether the tool returns all messages or requires pagination to retrieve full datasets.

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, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions the 'optional status filter' but adds no additional semantic context, syntax examples, or cross-parameter dependencies (e.g., date_from/date_to requiring 'custom' period) 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 explicitly states it 'Lists scheduled WhatsApp messages with optional status filter,' providing a specific verb (Lists), resource (scheduled WhatsApp messages), and scope. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_scheduled_emails' by specifying the WhatsApp domain.

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 description implies this is a read-only query operation (reinforced by the '[query]' tag and return field listing), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'create_scheduled_message' or 'update_scheduled_message', nor does it indicate prerequisites or exclusions.

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