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 usefully includes a '[mutation]' tag indicating write behavior and explains the effect is for display purposes, but lacks details on scope (user vs. account level), side effects, or reversibility.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded. The em-dash structure creates slight redundancy ('Change timezone — Changes timezone'), but every word serves a purpose and the [mutation] tag efficiently conveys write-operation status without verbose explanation.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema. The description covers the core functionality but lacks richness regarding side effects, authentication requirements, or what 'correctamente' (correctly) means in context. Sufficient but minimal for the complexity level.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear IANA format documentation and examples. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action (changing timezone) and its purpose (displaying dates/times correctly). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_date_format' and 'update_language' by specifically referencing 'zona horaria' (timezone), though it could clarify if this affects user preferences or system-wide settings.

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 siblings like 'update_date_format' or 'update_language', or prerequisites like requiring specific permissions. The description assumes the agent knows when timezone changes are needed.

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