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 only discloses that the message is not actually sent, but omits other critical behaviors: whether it consumes API credits, if it stores the preview temporarily, what format the preview returns in, or idempotency guarantees.

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?

Contains formatting artifacts: the prefix 'Vista previa de seguimiento —' appears redundant (likely a title leak), and '[query]' at the end is clearly extraneous metadata. Otherwise, the core description is appropriately brief.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the core function. However, it misses opportunity to describe what the preview contains (e.g., AI-generated content, timing variables) or return structure, leaving gaps for an AI agent expecting rich context.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage ('Hash de la conversacion a analizar'), so the schema fully documents the conversation_hash parameter. The description adds no supplemental parameter guidance, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 it 'generates a preview of the follow-up message that would be sent to a client without actually sending it' — specific verb (generates), resource (follow-up message), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling trigger_smart_followup by emphasizing the non-sending aspect.

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?

Implies usage context by stating it generates a preview 'without actually sending,' suggesting use when validating content before sending. However, it fails to explicitly name trigger_smart_followup as the alternative for actual execution or state explicit prerequisites.

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