WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Includes '[mutation]' tag indicating write operation, and specifies external effect (publishing to online store). However, lacks disclosure on reversibility (unpublish_faq exists as sibling), idempotency, or immediate visibility effects.

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?

Efficient three-part structure: action definition, specific use case, mutation classification. No redundant words; front-loaded with the essential verb and scope. The em-dash usage effectively separates the action from the explanation.

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?

Appropriate for a single-parameter mutation tool without output schema. Covers the critical distinction between manual publication and automatic detection. Could enhance by mentioning visibility scope (public/customer-facing) or linking to unpublish/delete operations for reversibility 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?

Schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter semantics ('ID de la pregunta a publicar'). The description adds no explicit parameter guidance beyond the schema, warranting baseline score 3 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 the specific action (publicar/publish) and resource (pregunta del historial como FAQ), targeting the online store. It distinguishes this manual operation from automatic detection systems with 'no fueron detectadas automaticamente', establishing clear scope.

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 implicit when-to-use guidance by specifying utility for questions 'importantes que no fueron detectadas automaticamente' (not auto-detected). The schema references the sibling tool get_product_qa_questions for obtaining the ID, creating a usage chain. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative naming (e.g., vs. republish_faq).

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