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 explicitly discloses destructive behavior (invalidates current key, blocks access), marks operation as [mutation], and states confirmation is required. Excellent transparency about auth needs and destructive impact.

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?

Efficiently structured in one compound sentence: action (regenerate), consequence (invalidates/blocks), usage constraint (only if explicitly requested), and technical requirement (confirmation). Zero waste, front-loaded, every clause earns its place.

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 mutation with no output schema, description adequately covers purpose, consequences, prerequisites, and safety constraints. Could optionally mention how to retrieve the new key afterward, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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 (baseline 3). Description adds valuable context that confirmation is needed for a 'acción peligrosa'. However, it mentions 'confirm=true' while the required parameter is actually 'confirmation' (confirm is optional), potentially causing confusion about which parameter is mandatory.

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 uses specific verb 'Regenerar/Genera' with resource 'API key (token_ext)' and scope 'para la tienda'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_api_key (read) and other regeneration tools like regenerate_docqa_token by specifying 'del dashboard'.

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?

Explicitly states 'Usar solo si el usuario lo pide explicitamente' and discloses severe consequences: invalidates current key and blocks access for any MCP connection or application using it. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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