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 successfully discloses the critical safety pattern that this must be called before destructive operations to confirm with users. However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or the complete structure of returned data (only mentions name and ID) given the absence of an output schema.

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?

Appropriately structured with purpose front-loaded ('Listar workflows de WhatsApp'), followed by mandatory usage constraints and sibling references. Each sentence earns its place. Minor deduction for the trailing '[query]' tag which appears to be metadata noise, though it does not significantly impede readability.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description adequately covers the essential safety-critical workflow (mandatory listing before deletion). It mentions the key returned identifiers (name and ID). Minor gap: without an output schema, the description could have explicitly described the full return structure or pagination behavior, though the intended use case is clear.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters (empty object). According to scoring rules, 0 params equals a baseline score of 4. The description correctly provides no parameter details since none exist, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, as there are no parameters to document).

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?

Description explicitly states 'Obtiene la lista de todos los workflows de automatizacion de WhatsApp' (obtains the list of all WhatsApp automation workflows), providing specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming 'delete_whatsapp_workflow' and 'bulk_delete_workflows' as operations that require this tool to be called first.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with 'OBLIGATORIO llamar esta accion ANTES de cualquier operacion de eliminacion' (mandatory to call before any deletion operation). Names specific sibling alternatives and explains the workflow purpose: 'para identificar workflows por nombre e ID y confirmar con el usuario cuales quiere eliminar'. Also covers additional use cases for merging workflows.

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