WAzion MCP Server

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

The description includes '[mutation]' to indicate state-changing behavior, compensating for missing annotations. It explains the functional effect (AI can search internet when active). However, it lacks details on persistence scope (session vs. permanent), side effects, or what happens to in-flight queries when disabled.

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 efficiently structured with an em-dash separating the action summary from the functional explanation. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the mechanism, the second explains the benefit/use case. The '[mutation]' tag is slightly informal but concise.

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 low-complexity tool (1 boolean parameter, no output schema), the description is appropriately complete. It covers the toggle mechanism, the functional impact on AI behavior, and the practical use cases. Minor gap regarding whether the setting applies per-conversation, per-user, or globally.

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 ('true para activar busqueda web, false para desactivar'), the baseline is 3. The main description adds functional context about what the boolean controls (AI internet access), but does not add syntactic details or constraints beyond 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 specific action (activate/deactivate) and resource (web search/internet search) using distinct verbs. It distinguishes itself from sibling toggle tools by detailing the unique capability enabled: searching for current trends, market prices, and news.

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 clear contextual guidance on when to enable this feature—specifically for 'preguntas sobre tendencias, precios del mercado, noticias o datos que cambian frecuentemente.' This implicitly defines the use case against other toggles, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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