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 retrieving backlinks but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, data format, pagination, or whether it's read-only or destructive. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be more informative without sacrificing 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'GMB' means, the return format, or how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for a tool in a complex domain with many alternatives.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'input' described as 'Seed keyword'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate or provide extra context.

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 backlinks des domaines GMB' (Get backlinks from GMB domains) states a clear verb ('Obtenir') and resource ('backlinks des domaines GMB'), but it's vague about what 'GMB' refers to (likely Google My Business) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_domains_gmb_backlinks_categories' or 'get_domains_gmb_backlinks_map'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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 (e.g., 'get_domains_gmb_backlinks_categories', 'get_domains_gmb_backlinks_map'), the description doesn't explain differences, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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