WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the operation as a [mutation], but fails to mention whether the action is reversible, performance implications of bulk operations, or how the optional filtering parameters (agent_id, filter, type) interact with the 'mark all' 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 description is compact and front-loaded, using a title-description format with zero filler words. However, for a 6-parameter bulk mutation tool, it may be overly terse, leaving critical behavioral questions unanswered that could fit within a single additional sentence.

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 tool has 6 optional parameters suggesting complex filtering capabilities (agent_id, filter, type, notification_id) alongside pagination (limit, offset), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, the scope of 'all' (global vs. filtered), or why specific ID parameters exist in a bulk-marking tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add semantic context beyond the schema, such as explaining that 'limit' and 'offset' enable pagination for large notification sets, or clarifying whether providing 'notification_id' restricts the operation to a single notification despite the 'all' naming.

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 the tool marks all unread notifications as read, specifying the target state (unread) and action (mark as read). It includes a [mutation] tag indicating state change. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'mark_notification_read' (singular), relying only on the name contrast to imply bulk vs. single operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this bulk operation versus the singular 'mark_notification_read', nor does it warn about the irreversible nature of bulk marking or suggest using filters (agent_id, type) versus truly marking all notifications. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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