WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching across both CRM and contacts (useful scope context), but fails to explain the odd presence of 'para merge' parameters (primary_phone, secondary_phone) in a search tool, or whether the search is fuzzy/partial matching. No indication of result format or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 brief and front-loaded, but contains a formatting artifact '[query]' at the end that appears to be a template placeholder. The extreme brevity is inappropriate given the tool's complexity (9 parameters with unclear relationships), resulting in under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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?

Inadequate for a 9-parameter tool with no output schema. The description fails to explain what distinguishes this from the `merge_customers` sibling tool despite containing merge-related parameters, does not describe the return structure, and does not clarify how the various filter parameters (comment, agent_name, tags) interact with the main query parameter.

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?

While schema coverage is high (89%), the description only explains the query parameter (name/phone/email search text). It completely ignores the semantics of the other 6 parameters: phone, comment, agent_name, tag filters, and especially the confusing merge-related phone parameters. The description does not clarify if these are filters, search inputs, or operation modifiers.

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?

Clearly states the tool searches customers by name, phone, or email across both CRM and contacts systems. However, it only describes the basic text search capability and ignores the additional filtering dimensions (tags, agents, comments, merge-related phones) evident in the parameter schema.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like `get_customer_info` (direct lookup) or `global_search`. Does not explain the relationship between the query parameter and the other filter parameters (phone, tag_name, comment), leaving ambiguity about how to combine search criteria.

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