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. It correctly identifies this as a mutation [mutation] and specifies it affects display ('se muestran'), but fails to disclose scope (global vs user-specific), reversibility, or immediate effects on existing data.

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 two-part structure (action — explanation) is efficient and front-loaded. However, the mix of English tool name with Spanish description may cause slight friction, and the [mutation] tag feels appended rather than integrated.

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 preference tool without output schema, the description covers the basic operation but lacks contextual details about impact scope (all users vs current user) and relationship to locale settings. Minimum viable but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear enum values. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond implying the format change, meeting the baseline for well-documented schemas.

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 tool changes the date display format using specific verbs ('Cambiar', 'Cambia') and identifies the resource (date format). However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like update_timezone or update_language which could also affect date presentation.

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, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether certain permissions are required). The [mutation] tag indicates it's a write operation but doesn't guide selection criteria.

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