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 of behavioral disclosure. Beyond the [mutation] tag indicating a write operation, it fails to clarify whether omitted parameters are preserved or reset, whether the operation is idempotent, or what side effects occur (e.g., immediate effect on active campaigns).

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 two sentences separated by an em-dash. The first sentence is redundant with the function name, wasting space. The second sentence is substantive. The [mutation] tag is useful but could have been an annotation. Overall efficient but not optimally front-loaded.

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?

For a 6-parameter configuration tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the functional scope (auto-reply settings, translation, approval workflows). However, it misses the opportunity to note that all parameters are optional (enabling partial updates) or to describe the relationship with the configuration getter.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual grouping ('auto-respuesta, traduccion y opciones de envio') which maps to the schema fields, providing mild semantic context beyond the raw schema, but does not elaborate on parameter interactions or validation rules.

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 identifies the tool as saving mass marketing configuration (specific verb + resource) and lists the functional areas covered: auto-reply, translation, and sending options. The [mutation] tag and 'Guarda' verb distinguish it from the sibling getter get_mass_marketing_config. However, the first phrase 'Guardar configuracion...' tautologically restates the function name.

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?

The [mutation] tag implicitly signals this is for write operations, but there are no explicit guidelines on when to use this versus get_mass_marketing_config, no prerequisites mentioned, and no warnings about the effects of partial updates (all 6 parameters are optional in schema).

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