WAzion MCP Server

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

Discloses partial-update behavior and includes '[mutation]' tag indicating write semantics, but with zero annotations provided, fails to disclose safety characteristics (reversibility, error handling for invalid IDs, encryption confirmation for passwords) expected for a sensitive credential-modifying operation.

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?

Highly efficient three-segment structure: title phrase, core action with scope, and behavioral note. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy or filler text.

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?

Adequate for a well-schematized tool, but given 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits return value structure, error conditions, and prerequisite validations that would help an agent handle failures gracefully.

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?

While schema has 100% coverage, the description adds valuable semantic context that parameters function as a sparse update (only sent fields modify), which helps the agent understand not to send unchanged fields to avoid overwriting.

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 verb 'Modifica' (modifies) with explicit resource 'cuenta de correo existente' (existing email account), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'create_email_account' by emphasizing the account must already exist.

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 important partial-update semantics ('Solo se actualizan los campos enviados'), indicating PATCH-like behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'create_email_account' or 'delete_email_account' despite the large sibling toolset.

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