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 of disclosure. It successfully indicates this is a mutation operation and warns about the destructive side effect (automatic deletion of old emails). It does not mention reversibility or rate limits, but covers the critical safety aspect.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first clause defines the action, the second warns of side effects, and the third classifies the operation type. Front-loaded and appropriately sized with no redundant 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?

For a simple 2-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the operation and its consequences adequately, though it could briefly mention the return value (success confirmation) given the absence of an output schema.

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%, with retention_days and id fully documented in the schema (including the enum values 30/60/90/180). The description implies the period change but does not add syntax details or parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 'Cambia' (changes) targeting the resource 'periodo de retencion de emails' (email retention period). It distinguishes from sibling get_email_retention by explicitly noting the mutation nature with [mutation] tag and describing the side effect of automatic deletion of old emails.

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 clear behavioral context via the warning 'Los emails mas antiguos se eliminan automaticamente' (older emails are automatically deleted), which functions as a when-not-to-use guideline. However, it does not explicitly name get_email_retention as the read-only alternative for checking current settings.

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