WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and marks the operation as '[mutation]', indicating state change. It notes the tool handles 'una o varias' (one or several) items. However, it omits error handling (what if already-published IDs are passed?), reversibility, or return value structure.

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 packed into one sentence with a meta-tag. Every word serves a purpose: the em-dash provides a title-like header, the main clause defines the action and constraint, and '[mutation]' signals behavioral class. The informal bracketed tag slightly detracts from professional structure.

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 low complexity (single array parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and 100% schema coverage, the description meets minimum viable completeness. However, given the rich sibling tool ecosystem (including 'unpublish_faq'), it could strengthen contextual completeness by explicitly noting the relationship to the FAQ lifecycle.

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 'faq_ids' parameter, the baseline is appropriately 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely confirming via 'una o varias' that multiple IDs are supported, which the array type already implies.

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 ('Republica') with clear resource ('FAQ') and scope ('previamente despublicadas'). It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like 'unpublish_faq' (inverse operation) and 'publish_question_as_faq' (new content) by specifying the prerequisite state of the FAQs.

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 constraints by specifying 'previamente despublicadas' (previously unpublished), hinting that this tool is for restoring visibility to hidden FAQs. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many sibling FAQ tools.

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