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 of behavioral disclosure. The '[mutation]' tag successfully identifies this as a write operation, and 'despublicar' implies visibility state changes rather than deletion. However, it omits reversibility details, side effects, or whether the FAQs remain accessible internally.

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 efficiently uses a header-em-dash-explanation format ('Despublicar FAQ — Despublica...') that front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized with zero redundancy, though the '[mutation]' metadata tag at the end slightly breaks the prose flow.

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 mutation tool without output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context: what it does, to which plugin resource, and that it's a mutation. However, given the rich sibling ecosystem (republish_faq, delete_faq, manage_faq), it should clarify the relationship between these operations for complete selection context.

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, the parameter 'faq_ids' is already well-documented as 'IDs de las FAQs a despublicar'. The description adds value by emphasizing 'una o varias' (one or several), reinforcing the array nature and batch capability, but does not add format specifications or validation constraints.

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 action ('despublicar'/unpublish), the resource (FAQ), and the specific scope (Product Q&A plugin). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_faq' through the specific verb choice, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'republish_faq' or 'publish_question_as_faq' in the text.

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 includes a '[mutation]' tag indicating this is a state-changing operation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings like 'delete_faq' (removal vs. unpublishing) or 'republish_faq'. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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