WAzion MCP Server

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool verifies credentials and OAuth permissions, but omits critical behavioral details such as the return value format (success/failure indicators), error handling behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects like rate limit consumption.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently explains the fallback mechanism. However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be a template artifact or placeholder that wastes space and slightly reduces clarity.

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 diagnostic tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core validation purpose and optional credential behavior. However, it lacks completeness regarding output structure, failure modes, and specific Shopify OAuth scope requirements.

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 adds the general principle of credential fallback ('usa las almacenadas en la configuracion'), but fails to clarify the semantic duplication between 'shopify_url'/'url' and 'shopify_token'/'token' parameters present in the schema.

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 'Valida la conexion con una tienda Shopify' (validates the connection with a Shopify store), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'test_ecommerce_connection' by explicitly naming Shopify and detailing the validation of OAuth permissions.

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?

The description provides implicit usage guidance by explaining the credential fallback behavior ('Si no se proporcionan credenciales, usa las almacenadas'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the generic 'test_ecommerce_connection' or other connection test tools.

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