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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'obtenir' (get), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it's a simple retrieval, a complex analysis, or if it involves API rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, as it lacks necessary details for a tool with no annotations or output schema, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 'map' and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a visual map, JSON data), how the backlinks are analyzed, or any prerequisites. For a tool with one parameter but potentially rich behavior, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'input' documented as 'Seed keyword'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this—it doesn't clarify what a 'seed keyword' is in the context of GMB backlinks maps or provide examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to enhance parameter understanding.

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 la carte des backlinks des domaines GMB' (Get the backlinks map of GMB domains) states a clear action ('obtenir') and resource ('carte des backlinks des domaines GMB'), but it's vague about what 'carte' (map) specifically means—is it a visualization, a list, or a structured report? It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_domains_gmb_backlinks' by specifying 'map', but the distinction isn't clearly explained, leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.

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 siblings like 'get_domains_gmb_backlinks' and 'get_domains_gmb_backlinks_categories', there's no indication of differences in scope, output format, or use cases. The agent must infer usage from tool names alone, which is insufficient for effective selection.

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