WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. While [mutation] tag indicates write operation, description lacks critical safety details: whether operation is idempotent, if it performs full replacement or partial update of settings (relevant given both parameters are optional), reversibility, or side effects.

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?

Compact two-part structure (title fragment + explanation) with zero filler. [mutation] tag efficiently conveys operation type without verbose prose. Every word serves to identify scope (global), resource (calendar configuration), and action (save).

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?

Description adequately identifies tool purpose and mutation nature, and schema fully documents the 2 parameters. However, as a mutation tool without annotations or output schema, it lacks behavioral safety context (overwrite behavior, partial vs full update implications) that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'settings' and 'enabled' parameters fully documented in schema ('Objeto con la configuracion del calendario', 'Si el modulo de calendario esta habilitado'). Description adds no additional parameter semantics, syntax, or examples beyond schema definitions, meeting baseline expectations 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Guarda' (Saves) with resource 'configuracion global del modulo de calendario' (global calendar module configuration). The [mutation] tag clarifies operation type. Distinguishes implicitly from get_calendar_settings by verb and from update_calendar by emphasizing 'global module' scope, though explicit sibling differentiation is absent.

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 explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like update_calendar or configure_plugin_chat. No prerequisites, conditions, or 'when-not' exclusions provided. Lacks mention of get_calendar_settings as the read counterpart for retrieval operations.

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