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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains the tool returns impact analysis (affected configurations) and migration options (alternative sessions), plus the critical state constraint. Minor deduction because it doesn't explicitly state this is a safe, read-only operation (though implied by 'pre-verificar').

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?

Well-structured with purpose front-loaded (pre-check functionality), followed by specific return value descriptions (affected configs, alternatives), and ending with critical constraints (IMPORTANTE). The '[query]' artifact at the end is minor noise. Spanish language is consistent with schema descriptions.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by specifying what information is returned (affected configurations and alternative sessions). It covers the operational prerequisite (disconnected status) and error handling guidance. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with the actual delete tool or mentioning safety guarantees.

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 coverage is 100% with the session_id parameter fully documented as 'ID de la sesión a verificar'. The description references 'sesión' generally but doesn't add specific semantics, constraints, or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score appropriate for 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 this is a pre-deletion verification tool ('Pre-verificar eliminación') that shows affected configurations (workflows, campaigns, smart follow-up) and lists alternative sessions for migration. It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'delete_whatsapp_session' by emphasizing the preview/migration aspect rather than actual deletion.

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 operational constraints: 'Solo se pueden eliminar sesiones en estado disconnected' and clear remediation steps if the session is connected ('informa al usuario que primero debe desconectarla'). This creates a clear workflow: use this tool to check → disconnect if needed → then delete.

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