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 discloses the mutative nature via the '[mutation]' tag and describes the state change (resetting error status and retrying connection). However, it lacks details on failure modes, idempotency, whether the operation is synchronous/asynchronous, or what status is returned if the retry fails again.

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 structured with the action statement first, followed by the specific use case. Every sentence contributes value: the first defines the operation, the second provides the usage context, and the [mutation] tag clarifies the write nature. No redundant or wasteful content.

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?

Adequately complete for a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. The description covers the operation's purpose, the specific error condition it addresses (IMAP/SMTP failures), and the state change performed. Could be improved by mentioning the expected outcome state (success/failure indicators), but sufficient for tool selection.

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 (the 'id' parameter is fully documented as 'ID de la cuenta de email a reintentar'), the schema provides complete semantic information. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 specific verbs ('Resetea el estado de error', 'reintenta la conexion') and clearly identifies the resource (email account in error state). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_email_account, test_email_connection, or update_email_account by focusing specifically on error recovery and reconnection.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Util cuando una cuenta esta en estado de error tras fallos de IMAP/SMTP'), providing clear contextual guidance for error recovery scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like test_email_connection for diagnosing versus retrying connections.

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