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 successfully discloses the mutation nature via '[mutation]' tag, the danger level ('acción peligrosa'), and the confirmation requirement. It also explains the preview-then-execute pattern. It loses one point for not detailing side effects (e.g., whether old knowledge is deleted vs archived) or reversibility.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose definition, usage triggers with examples, two-phase workflow instructions, and safety metadata. Despite covering complex workflow logic, it remains compact and front-loaded with the most important information (what it does and when to use it).

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 the complex two-phase mutation pattern and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the conceptual flow. However, it could improve by describing what the preview returns (structure of proposed changes) to help the agent extract 'selected_ids' and 'changes' for Phase 2. Without an output schema, this responsibility falls to the description.

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, the baseline is 3. The description elevates this by explaining the workflow relationship between parameters: that 'confirm', 'selected_ids', and 'changes' are used in Phase 2 after the preview, and that 'changes' comes from the preview response. This adds critical semantic context beyond the schema definitions.

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 'Busca y actualiza datos aprendidos que contradigan o estén desactualizados' (searches and updates learned contradictory/outdated data), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like edit_knowledge_snippet by emphasizing it handles natural language instructions and identifies contradictions automatically rather than manual editing.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: 'Usa esto cuando el usuario dice cosas como...' followed by concrete examples ('ahora aceptamos PayPal', 'hemos cambiado el horario'). It also clearly documents the two-phase workflow: 'Primero llama SIN confirm para ver preview, luego con confirm=true...para ejecutar', which is critical for safe operation.

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