Haloscan MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description fails to explain what 'best pages' means (e.g., by traffic, relevance, or other metrics), whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. It lacks essential context about the tool's behavior and output format.

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, efficient sentence in French, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is straightforward, but it lacks front-loading of critical details like purpose differentiation.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the tool's role among similar tools, explain behavioral traits, or detail what 'best pages' means. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters: 'input' as 'Seed keyword' and 'competitors' as 'Specific data fields to request.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'competitors' relates to domains or what 'best pages' entails. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.

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 les meilleures pages des concurrents des domaines' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name in French. It translates to 'Get the best pages of domain competitors,' which mirrors the English name 'get_domains_competitors_best_pages' without adding specificity or distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_domains_competitors' or 'get_domains_top_pages.' No clear verb-resource distinction or unique purpose is articulated.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to domains, competitors, and pages (e.g., 'get_domains_competitors', 'get_domains_top_pages'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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