WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds crucial behavioral context that QR scanning may be required ('puede requerir escanear QR manualmente') and includes '[mutation]' tag indicating state change. However, it omits idempotency details, failure modes, or side effects on existing active sessions.

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 optimally front-loaded with the action, uses a parenthetical efficiently for the QR requirement, and appends the mutation indicator without clutter. Every clause earns its place; no redundant or tautological language present.

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 single-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavioral expectations (QR scanning possibility, session lookup prerequisite). It appropriately references related tools (get_whatsapp_status) for completing the workflow, though it could mention error handling or success indicators.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating the conditional requirement logic ('Si hay multiples numeros, requiere session_id') in the main description text, reinforcing and contextualizing the schema's parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Intenta reconectar') with a clear resource ('sesion de WhatsApp existente'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like connect_whatsapp (new connections) vs reconnect_whatsapp (existing sessions), and mentions the QR scanning flow which links to get_whatsapp_qr.

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?

The description provides clear conditional logic for when session_id is required ('Si hay multiples numeros'). The schema description references get_whatsapp_status for obtaining IDs, establishing a prerequisite workflow. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use reconnect_whatsapp versus disconnect_whatsapp or delete_whatsapp_session.

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