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. While it correctly identifies the operation as a [mutation] and limits scope to 'esta tienda' (this store), it lacks disclosure of side effects (what happens to existing data when disabled), permissions required, idempotency, or whether the change is immediate.

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 brief with the action front-loaded. There is minor redundancy between 'Activar/desactivar analytics' and 'Activa o desactiva...' but the structure using an em-dash effectively separates the summary from the detailed explanation. The [mutation] tag is appropriately placed at the end.

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 single-parameter toggle without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the basic operation (enabling/disabling structured analytics recording). However, it misses opportunity to clarify the relationship with get_structured_analytics or explain the immediate consequences of toggling the setting.

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%, providing full documentation for the boolean parameter. The description mirrors this information by mentioning 'structured outputs' but adds no additional semantic context (e.g., default behavior, validation rules) beyond what the schema already 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 it activates or deactivates analytics registration with structured outputs for the store, and explicitly tags it as [mutation]. It distinguishes from sibling read tools like get_analytics by specifying the toggle action and structured outputs scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with retrieval operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_analytics or get_structured_analytics. The [mutation] tag implies it's for state changes, but there are no prerequisites, warnings about data loss, or recommendations on when toggling is appropriate.

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