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 includes a [mutation] tag indicating write behavior, and implies configuration persistence. However, it lacks details on what happens if specified folders don't exist, whether changes are reversible, or if this overwrites existing mappings entirely versus partial updates.

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?

Follows an efficient structure: purpose statement, specific scope details, and usage context. The two-sentence format with the [mutation] tag is appropriately sized. Only minor redundancy exists in the opening 'Configurar carpetas IMAP — Configura...' but overall information density is high.

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 6-parameter configuration tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the 'what' and 'why' (bidirectional sync). However, given the presence of sibling tool discover_email_folders, it should mention that folder discovery is typically required before mapping, which would complete the usage context for an agent navigating the tool set.

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 value by contextualizing the folder parameters as IMAP mappings and listing them in Spanish (Enviados, Papelera, Archivo, Spam), which aligns with the parameter descriptions and provides semantic grouping beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states it configures IMAP folder mapping ('Configura el mapeo de carpetas IMAP') for an email account, specifying the exact folder types handled (Sent, Trash, Archive, Spam). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from generic account updates like update_email_account by focusing specifically on folder synchronization mapping.

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 implied usage context by stating it is 'Necesario para la sincronizacion bidireccional' (Necessary for bidirectional synchronization), indicating when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., needing to discover available folders first) or when to use sibling tool discover_email_folders versus this one.

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