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. It successfully discloses this is a mutation and a 'dangerous action' requiring explicit confirmation, and notes the business constraints. However, it lacks details on side effects (what happens after requesting, approval workflows, or reversibility) that would fully prepare an agent for invocation consequences.

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 header, dash separator, and parenthetical technical notes. Every clause provides value: the em-dash clarifies the action, the parenthetical notes the mutation type and confirmation requirement. It avoids redundancy while packing multiple constraints into a compact form.

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 tool's relative simplicity (single boolean parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers the invocation prerequisites and business rules. However, it remains silent on the post-invocation behavior (e.g., whether the payout is immediate or enters a review queue), leaving a gap in contextual completeness for an agent deciding whether to invoke.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'confirm' parameter. The description mentions this parameter in the context of the confirmation workflow ('pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'), meeting the baseline expectation for high schema coverage without adding significant additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 it requests payment of pending commissions with a specific minimum amount (50€), providing a concrete verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_referral_data' (the read counterpart), though the action name implies this distinction.

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?

It provides explicit constraints: the minimum 50€ threshold and the critical state condition 'Solo disponible si no hay otra solicitud abierta' (only available if no other request is open). It also clearly documents the confirmation requirement pattern, though it does not name explicit alternatives.

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