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 discloses the mutation nature via '[mutation]' tag, clarifies the non-destructive persistence (toggle vs delete), and explains the runtime behavioral effect (AI usage dependency). Missing idempotency details or error states, but covers essential traits.

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?

Single-line description using em-dash to separate action from explanation. Front-loaded with the verb phrase 'Activar/desactivar'. Every clause earns its place: action, persistence clarification, functional impact, and mutation classification. 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 simple two-parameter toggle without output schema, the description adequately covers the domain concept (active vs paused states) and operational impact. Explains what the toggle controls (AI accessibility). Lacks return value documentation, but this is standard for simple state-toggles of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions ('ID del archivo', 'true para activar, false para pausar'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline score applies.

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 the action (activate/deactivate knowledge file) and scope (pauses without deleting). It distinguishes from sibling `delete_knowledge_file` by clarifying 'sin eliminarlo' (without deleting it) and explains the functional impact that 'la IA solo usa archivos activos' (AI only uses active files).

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?

Clear context on when to use (to pause/resume file usage) versus permanent deletion. Mentions the business rule about AI only using active files. Could improve by explicitly contrasting with `update_knowledge_file` for content edits, but effectively prevents confusion with deletion.

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