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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Obtenir') without details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical gaps in understanding how it behaves and what to expect.

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 avoids redundancy but is overly brief, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity in a multilingual context.

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 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, making it insufficient for an AI agent to reliably invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 all parameters documented in the schema (input, date_from, date_to as 'Seed keyword'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying parameter roles or formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 states the tool's purpose in French ('Obtenir l’historique des pages des domaines' translates to 'Get the history of domain pages'), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'history of domain pages' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_domains_history_positions' or 'get_domains_top_pages', leaving ambiguity about 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 multiple sibling tools focused on domains (e.g., 'get_domains_history_positions', 'get_domains_top_pages'), the description lacks context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only a basic statement of function.

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