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 mutation nature via [mutation] tag and explains the association logic (linking to existing customer by phone/email). However, it lacks details on idempotency, error handling if no customer matches, or what the return value indicates.

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 efficiently structured: purpose (generates/saves), prerequisite (requires identification), and behavioral tag ([mutation]). Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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?

Given this is a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core logic (AI summarization), destination (customer profile note), and business constraint (identification required). It could be improved by mentioning failure modes (e.g., what happens if no matching customer exists).

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 for the single 'session_id' parameter, the baseline is 3. The description implies the parameter's use ('sesion de chat') but does not add syntax details, format constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool generates an AI summary of a web chat plugin conversation and saves it as a note in the customer profile. It uses specific verbs (genera/guarda) and distinguishes from sibling 'check_plugin_conversation_note' by explicitly describing the write/generative action.

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 description provides explicit prerequisites: 'Requiere que el visitante se haya identificado con telefono o email' (Requires visitor identification). This tells the agent when NOT to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'check_plugin_conversation_note' for verification before saving.

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