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 tool is a verification/check operation ('Verifica si...'), implying read-only behavior. However, it fails to describe what the verification returns (boolean, permission object, error codes) or whether it performs actual test writes versus metadata checks.

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 content is appropriately brief, but the leading phrase 'Verificar permisos de escritura' restates the tool name, and the trailing '[query]' appears to be a metadata artifact or placeholder that degrades clarity.

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 verification tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers prerequisites but omits what constitutes success/failure output. Given the lack of annotations or output schema, the description should have specified the return value format or validation behavior.

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 zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters, though the stray '[query]' tag at the end is confusing and might incorrectly suggest query parameters exist.

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 specifies the tool verifies write permissions specifically for FAQ synchronization ('para sincronizar FAQs'), distinguishing it from general connection tests like 'test_ecommerce_connection' or status checks like 'get_ecommerce_sync_status'. The initial phrase is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the scope clarification saves it.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites for invocation: 'Requiere plataforma conectada Y plugin Product Q&A configurado.' This provides clear context on when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when permissions are missing.

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