WAzion MCP Server

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

The [mutation] tag indicates a write operation, but with no annotations, the description fails to explain behavioral quirks such as why pagination parameters (limit, offset) and filters exist for a tool described as targeting a 'specific' notification, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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, efficiently conveying the core purpose in two short segments. The mix of Spanish description with English [mutation] tag is slightly inconsistent but not verbose.

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?

With 6 parameters including unexplained pagination fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to clarify the mismatch between the singular tool purpose and the list-oriented parameter structure.

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 score. However, the description does not resolve the semantic confusion between the singular 'specific notification' purpose and the plural/filtering parameters (limit, offset, filter, type) 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 marks a specific notification as read ('Marca una notificacion especifica como leida'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'mark_all_notifications_read'. However, the singular focus conflicts with the pagination parameters present in the schema.

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 tool versus 'mark_all_notifications_read' or 'delete_notification'. The optional 'agent_id' parameter is present without explanation of when it should be populated.

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