WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It includes the [mutation] tag indicating write behavior and specifies it acts on 'pending' items, but does not disclose what happens after rejection (deletion, status change, notification side effects) or permission requirements.

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 efficiently structured with a clear title-action prefix, em-dash separator, and descriptive clause including the mutation tag. No redundant words; every element 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 single-parameter mutation tool without output schema, the description adequately covers the core function. However, it lacks explanation of the rejection outcome (whether the snippet is deleted, archived, or marked rejected) which would be necessary for full contextual completeness.

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 description coverage for the single 'id' parameter, the baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic context beyond the schema (e.g., where to obtain the ID or valid formats), but the schema is self-sufficient.

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 the specific action (reject/rechazar) and resource (knowledge snippet/snippet de conocimiento), and distinguishes from siblings like approve_knowledge_snippet by using the opposite verb 'rechazar' and specifying the target state 'pendiente' (pending).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'pendiente' (pending), suggesting this is for moderation workflows, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing it to approve_knowledge_snippet or delete_knowledge_snippet alternatives.

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