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. It includes '[mutation]' indicating a write operation, but lacks details on idempotency, what the mutation returns (ticket ID?), whether it's reversible, or side effects like notifications sent to support staff.

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?

Well-structured with the first phrase acting as a title (since title field is null), followed by purpose and usage guidelines. Three efficient sentences with no redundant information, though the opening phrase mirrors the tool name it serves as a header.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. Covers purpose, destination, and usage triggers. Could be improved by mentioning expected behavior after sending (e.g., ticket creation confirmation, response time expectations) given the lack of output schema documentation.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (type with enum explanations, subject with char limit, message with char limit). The description doesn't add syntax details beyond the schema, 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 clearly states it 'Envia un mensaje al equipo de soporte de WAzion' (sends a message to WAzion's support team), providing specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_email_reply or add_customer_comment by specifying the destination is the WAzion support team rather than customers or internal CRM records.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'cuando el usuario tenga un problema que no puedas resolver, quiera reportar un bug, o necesite ayuda del equipo tecnico.' This provides clear contextual triggers (unresolvable issues, bugs, technical help) though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to avoid.

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