WAzion MCP Server

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

Excellent disclosure given no annotations. Explicitly states this is a mutation ('[mutation]', 'acción peligrosa'), details the two-step confirmation workflow ('recibiras requires_confirmation=true...'), warns against retrying ('NO reintentes'), and explains system-managed UI behavior ('El sistema mostrara botones...').

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?

Appropriately structured with action first, then validation rules, then critical confirmation workflow. Slightly redundant between '[mutation]' tag and confirmation text in parentheses, but overall efficient given the complexity of the interaction pattern that must be communicated.

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?

Comprehensive for a tool with no output schema. Covers input validation, the intermediate confirmation state, and side effects (archiving). Could be improved by briefly describing the final success state after confirmation, but the core interaction model is fully documented.

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 coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds crucial workflow context for the 'confirm' parameter (explaining it triggers execution after the initial confirmation request) and preprocessing logic for 'phone' (handling missing country codes), warranting a higher score.

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 explicitly states the action ('Envia un mensaje') and resource ('WhatsApp'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_email_reply or send_support_ticket. The scope is precisely defined as immediate message sending to a phone number.

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 clear prerequisites (E.164 phone format with country code) and specific handling instructions ('Si el usuario da un numero sin prefijo, preguntale el pais'). However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like create_scheduled_message for delayed sending.

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