WAzion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't indicate whether this operation is read-only, what format the response takes, or whether the translation is stored persistently versus generated on-demand.

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 brief and front-loaded, but the '[query]' artifact at the end appears to be erroneous metadata or a template placeholder that detracts from professionalism and clarity. Otherwise efficiently structured.

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?

With 8 parameters including summarization options (`summary_type`, `tone`) and time filters (`days`, `hours`), the description is incomplete. It presents the tool as translation-only while the parameters reveal dual translation-summarization functionality. No output schema exists to compensate.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description references 'last messages' which loosely maps to `last_n`, but critically fails to mention the summarization capability implied by the `summary_type` parameter (quick/actionable/detailed), which is a significant semantic gap given the parameter's presence.

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 identifies the core action (translate), resource (conversation/messages), and method (using AI). However, the trailing '[query]' appears to be an artifact or placeholder that creates confusion, and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like `get_ai_summary`.

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 guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `get_ai_summary` or `toggle_auto_translate`. No mention of prerequisites or conditions for use.

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