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 discloses the mutation nature via the '[mutation]' tag and explains the AI-generated response behavior, but fails to clarify critical behavioral traits like whether updates are partial (PATCH) or full replacement, side effects, or error handling.

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 suffers from redundancy ('Configurar auto-responder de email — Configura...') and includes a metadata tag '[mutation]' that appears out of place. While brief, the opening fragment appears to be a misplaced title and the structure could be more efficient.

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?

Given 6 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context by identifying the AI nature of the auto-responder. However, it lacks explanation of default behaviors when optional parameters are omitted and does not describe the response or success/failure modes for this mutation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the draft/automatic modes which correspond to the auto_responder_mode parameter, but this information is already present in the schema. No additional semantic context, validation rules, or examples are provided beyond 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 clearly states the tool configures an AI auto-responder ('Configura el auto-responder IA') for an email account, distinguishing it from generic email account management. It specifies the dual capability to generate drafts or send automatic responses, which helps identify the tool's specific domain.

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 implies usage through explaining the two operational modes (draft vs automatic), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'update_email_account' or 'create_email_account'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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