Haloscan 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. It mentions 'reveal' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about how the tool behaves.

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, concise sentence in French, front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words, though it could benefit from more detail to improve 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'reveal' means operationally, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand its 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 the parameter 'root_domain_keys' documented as 'Seed keyword'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what 'root_domain_keys' represents or how it affects the reveal process. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Révéler les domaines expirés' (Reveal expired domains) states a clear verb ('révéler') and resource ('domaines expirés'), but it's vague about what 'reveal' entails—whether it lists, filters, or provides details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_domains_expired' by implying a reveal action, but the distinction is subtle and not well-specified.

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 siblings like 'get_domains_expired' and 'get_domains_bulk', the description lacks context on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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