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 adds the '[mutation]' classification, concurrency conflict behavior, and confirmation requirement. However, it lacks disclosure of what the analysis actually does (side effects, scope) and what error/success responses look like.

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?

Extremely efficient: front-loaded action ('Ejecutar Smart Follow-up ahora'), followed by scope, concurrency constraint, and safety requirement in a single sentence. No redundant words.

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?

Covers essential safety (confirmation) and concurrency constraints for a mutation tool. However, lacking output schema and annotations, it should describe success behavior and business impact of the analysis. Currently vague on what executing actually accomplishes.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds critical usage context: it explicitly states that confirm=true is required to execute ('requiere confirmación: pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'). This compensates for the schema marking 0 parameters as required.

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 uses specific verbs ('Lanza manualmente') and identifies the resource ('analisis de seguimiento inteligente'). It distinguishes this manual trigger from automated/cron executions, though it could clarify what 'Smart Follow-up' actually does (e.g., sends emails vs. analyzes data).

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?

Provides clear concurrency guidance ('Si ya hay una ejecucion en curso... devuelve error') and safety requirements. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'preview_smart_followup' or explain when to use preview versus trigger.

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