WAzion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation nature and safety confirmation requirement, but omits details about atomicity, error handling, immediate system impact, or whether changes affect live CRM synchronization instantly. The parameter schema covers the additive nature of 'add_crm_endpoint' (not deleting existing ones).

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 sentence structure using an em-dash is efficient and front-loaded. The opening phrase is slightly redundant with the tool name, but the parenthetical confirmation requirement is appropriately placed as critical safety information. No wasted 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?

For a mutation tool with three parameters and safety requirements, the description covers the core operation and confirmation mechanism. However, given the complexity of CRM endpoint management and lack of output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the scope of impact (e.g., immediate sync activation) or referencing the detailed parameter schemas for endpoint types.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, primarily emphasizing the confirmation requirement which is already documented in the confirm parameter's description. It does not explain the JSON syntax for endpoints or valid types beyond what's in 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 states it defines endpoints for synchronizing data with a CRM and explicitly tags it as [mutation]. While 'Configurar endpoints CRM' partially restates the tool name, the addition of synchronization context clarifies the purpose. It could better distinguish from the sibling 'test_crm_endpoint'.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on the confirmation requirement ('pasar confirm=true para ejecutar'), indicating this is a protected action. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'test_crm_endpoint' or 'reset_crm_errors', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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