WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clarifies that both IMAP and SMTP are tested (adding useful protocol context), but omits critical behavioral details for a credential-heavy tool: whether passwords are stored, what constitutes success/failure, timeout behavior, or network safety (read-only vs destructive).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Verifica...'). Two-sentence structure is efficient, though the trailing '[query]' appears to be a placeholder artifact that doesn't add value. Otherwise no redundant text.

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 10-parameter credential-testing tool with no output schema, description adequately covers the 'what' but leaves gaps on 'how' (test methodology) and 'result' (return format, error types). Should ideally disclose if this performs actual network connections or validates syntax, and what the caller receives back.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, establishing baseline. Description mentions IMAP and SMTP generally, mapping to the 8 credential parameters conceptually, but doesn't add syntax details, validation rules, or explain why account_id is required alongside full credentials.

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?

Description explicitly states it 'verifies that the IMAP and SMTP connection of an email account works correctly' — specific verb (verifies) + dual resources (IMAP and SMTP) + clear scope. Distinguishes from siblings like test_ecommerce_connection or test_webhook by specifying email protocols.

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?

Implies usage context (testing connectivity), but lacks explicit workflow guidance such as whether to use this before create_email_account, after updates, or for troubleshooting existing accounts. No mention of prerequisites or when to prefer this over retry_email_account.

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