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. While '[mutation]' indicates a write operation, the description fails to explain critical behavioral details: that add_* parameters append without deleting existing items (vs. replacing the entire list), or how the helper shortcut creation/update logic works. It also doesn't mention rate limits or side effects.

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 is compact and front-loaded, using an em-dash to separate the general action from specific scope. While efficient, it borders on underspecification given the tool's complexity. No redundant or wasted 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 tool with 8 parameters handling complex partial-update patterns (add/remove lists) and JSON-based helper creation, the single-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to explain the additive vs. destructive behavior of the list parameters or acknowledge the shortcut/helper functionality, leaving significant gaps an agent would need to infer from the schema alone.

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 provides high-level grouping (prefixes, ignore lists) but completely omits the 'helper' parameters (add_helper, remove_helper) which constitute 25% of the tool's functionality. The schema compensates for this omission with detailed field descriptions.

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 identifies the tool configures order prefixes and phone/email ignore lists, with the '[mutation]' tag clarifying it's a write operation. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from sibling configuration tools like 'configure_ecommerce_locales' or explain the scope relative to other order management functions.

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 ecommerce must be connected first). The description states what it configures but not under what circumstances an agent should invoke it.

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