Haloscan MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but discloses nothing about behavior. It doesn't mention if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, pagination, or what the output format looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits unknown.

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 a single phrase that is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks front-loading of key details and wastes the opportunity to provide essential context, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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?

Given the complexity implied by sibling tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'domains' means, what data is returned, or how bulk retrieval works, failing to compensate for missing structured information.

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 the 'inputs' parameter documented as 'Specific data fields to request'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid fields or formatting. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Obtenir des domaines en masse' (Get domains in bulk) states a vague purpose without specifying what kind of domains or what data about them is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_domains_overview' or 'get_domains_expired', leaving the agent uncertain about the exact resource scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_domains_overview' or 'get_domains_keywords', the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to choose appropriately.

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