WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses: mutation nature via [mutation] tag, destructive/dangerous classification ('acción peligrosa'), conditional reactivation logic, and safety mechanism. Missing minor details like reversibility or specific failure modes, but adequately covers primary behavioral traits.

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 packs purpose, behavioral details, mutation classification, and safety instructions into one sentence. Minor redundancy between 'Resetear' (prefix) and 'Resetea' (verb) is negligible. Front-loaded with the core action, safety details appropriately parenthetical.

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?

Appropriately complete for a single-parameter mutation tool without output schema. Covers the primary effect (counter reset), side effect (endpoint reactivation), and safety protocol. Does not need to describe return values given no output schema exists.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds crucial semantic context that 'confirm=true' is effectively required for execution ('para ejecutar'), even though the schema marks it as optional (required: 0). This bridges the gap between technical schema and practical usage.

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 (resetting CRM error counters) and scope (reactivating endpoints disabled by consecutive errors). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_crm_endpoints' by specifying this handles error-state recovery rather than general configuration updates.

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?

Provides clear safety context (dangerous action requiring confirmation) and implies usage timing (when endpoints are disabled by consecutive errors). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives (e.g., 'get_crm_health_status' to check first), but the confirmation requirement serves as effective usage guidance.

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