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 only states it shows 'all' available agents. It lacks information on pagination, read-only safety confirmation, or what constitutes 'available' versus inactive agents.

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 and front-loaded with the action verb, but the trailing '[query]' appears to be noise or a template placeholder that reduces structural quality and suggests incompleteness.

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 simple list tool with no parameters, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, given no output schema, it should ideally describe the return format, and the relationship to other agent-listing tools could be clearer.

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 0 parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per the rubric. However, the description confusingly ends with '[query]' which might suggest a parameter that doesn't exist in the schema.

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 attention agents ('agentes de atencion') specifically for WhatsApp workflows, distinguishing it from generic list_agents or list_calendar_agents siblings. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be a placeholder or formatting error that slightly detracts from 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?

While it mentions the context ('para asignar en workflows de WhatsApp'), it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the generic list_agents sibling or what prerequisites might exist for assignment workflows.

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