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 of disclosure but fails to resolve whether this is a destructive operation (restoring defaults) or a safe read (getting default values). It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the current active prompt.

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 brief and front-loaded, but its brevity exacerbates the confusion rather than clarifying it. The em-dash structure separates the action from the explanation, highlighting the internal contradiction.

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?

Lacks explanation of return values (no output schema exists), does not resolve the read/write ambiguity, and references non-existent parameters. For a tool among many prompt-related siblings, this leaves critical gaps in contextual understanding.

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?

While the schema correctly shows 0 parameters (baseline 4), the description actively misleads by referencing '[query]' as if a language parameter exists. This creates false expectations about required inputs and could cause invocation errors.

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 contains contradictory verbs: 'Restaurar' (Restore) implies a write operation while 'Obtiene' (Gets/Retrieves) implies a read operation. It also references a '[query]' parameter that does not exist in the empty input schema, creating confusion about what the tool actually does.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_prompt', 'save_prompt', 'rollback_prompt', or 'apply_prompt_instruction'. The description does not clarify prerequisites, side effects, or selection criteria.

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