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 disclosure burden. It only indicates [mutation] but omits critical behavioral details: whether this creates a copy or reference, validation rules for template names, idempotency, or side effects on the source workflow.

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?

Extremely brief single-line description with no filler words beyond the initial tautology. The [mutation] tag is efficiently placed. However, the brevity comes at the cost of necessary operational context.

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?

Insufficient for a mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema. The description fails to explain what 'reusable' entails, how the workflow_id extraction works, or what the agent should expect after invocation (e.g., template availability latency).

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage with Spanish descriptions for all three parameters (name, category, workflow_id). The description adds no additional parameter context, syntax guidance, or examples 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 'Guardar como plantilla — Guarda un mensaje...' tautologically restates the tool name (save_as_template). While it identifies WhatsApp as the target platform, it fails to differentiate from the similar sibling create_whatsapp_template_from_workflow or clarify the extraction mechanism.

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 on when to use this tool versus create_whatsapp_template_from_workflow or other template creation methods. Missing prerequisites (e.g., whether the workflow must be active) and no mention of potential conflicts with existing templates.

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