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 clearly marks the operation as '[mutation]' and explicitly discloses the confirmation safety requirement ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'). However, it doesn't clarify behavioral differences between unpublish vs delete (e.g., recoverability) or execution timing.

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?

Extremely efficient structure: purpose statement, specific actions, usage context, mutation tag, and safety warning in a single sentence. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Appropriate for a 3-parameter mutation tool without output schema. Covers safety-critical confirmation mechanism and plugin context. Could be improved by clarifying the irreversible nature of 'delete' versus reversible 'unpublish', but sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Schema has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description adds the confirmation requirement warning, though this overlaps with schema text. It does not add syntax details, example IDs, or semantic clarification 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?

Description clearly states the specific actions (unpublish, republish, delete) on the specific resource (FAQs in Product Q&A plugin). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_faq' or 'unpublish_faq' by positioning itself as the unified management interface with an action parameter.

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 context that it's 'Util para gestionar contenido que ya no es relevante' (useful for irrelevant content). The schema references the data source (get_product_qa_faqs), but the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this bulk tool versus the individual 'delete_faq', 'unpublish_faq', or 'republish_faq' siblings.

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