WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions filtering but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset params exist), whether results are sorted, or if this is read-only (implied but not explicit). The trailing '[query]' is unexplained and 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?

Single line with em-dash is appropriately brief, but the unexplained '[query]' placeholder at the end creates confusion and appears to be an editing artifact or undocumented parameter reference, reducing 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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits pagination behavior explanation, doesn't clarify the difference between filtering by agent_id vs assigned_agent_id, and provides no hint about result ordering or default limits when no parameters are provided.

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?

With 91% schema coverage, the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions filters that map to parameters (status, agent, phone) but doesn't clarify the ambiguity between agent_id and assigned_agent_id, nor explain what the trailing '[query]' refers to (possibly task_text?). Baseline score for high schema coverage with minimal added context.

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 tasks ('Listar tareas') with specific filters (status, agent, phone), and mentions the scope ('de la tienda'). However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like get_agent_tasks, get_overdue_tasks, or create_task, leaving ambiguity about which task tool to use.

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 provided on when to use this versus get_agent_tasks (which presumably gets tasks for a specific agent) or get_overdue_tasks. No mention of prerequisites or performance implications of listing without filters.

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