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. The '[mutation]' tag indicates a write operation, but the description fails to disclose reversibility (can priority be unset?), side effects (notifications triggered?), or permission requirements. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing operation.

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, though slightly redundant in opening with 'Establecer prioridad...' (restating the tool name) before 'Cambia la prioridad...'. Every word earns its place, and the mutation tag is appropriately placed.

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 three-parameter mutation tool without output schema or annotations, the description meets minimum viability by identifying the operation and marking it as a mutation. However, given the density of sibling email tools (40+), it lacks contextual guidance on priority system implications (e.g., whether high priority triggers alerts).

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 all three parameters (action, thread_id, priority) fully documented in the schema including enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline 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 clearly states the tool changes email thread priority using specific verb ('Cambia') and resource ('hilo de email'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `assign_email_thread`, `snooze_email_thread`, or the generic `email_thread_action` that may overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not indicate when priority setting is preferred over tagging (`set_email_tags`), assignment (`assign_email_thread`), or other thread management operations available in the sibling list.

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