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. It effectively discloses the mutation nature via [mutation] tag, describes data combination behavior (comments/tags/CRM), and warns about the destructive aspect requiring confirmation. Could improve by mentioning reversibility or side effects on related records (conversations/orders).

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?

Highly efficient single-sentence structure with parenthetical detail. Every element earns its place: action verb, resource scope, affected data types, mutation classification, and safety requirement. No redundant or wasted words despite being bilingual in nature.

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 destructive merge operation without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the essential behavioral contract (what merges, what gets deleted, confirmation requirement). Minor gap: doesn't describe what happens when confirm is false (validation/dry run?) or the return value structure on success.

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%, documenting primary/secondary phone roles and confirm parameter. The description reinforces the confirmation requirement in the main text, but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., phone number formats, what confirm=false does). Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Fusiona dos registros de cliente en uno'), the resources affected (customer records), and the scope (combining comments, tags and CRM data). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_customer_comment or update_contact_info by emphasizing the merge/combination behavior.

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 clear context that this is a dangerous action requiring explicit confirmation ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true'), which signals the safety-critical nature of the operation. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., when to use update_customer_tags instead).

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