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 only states the action ('obtenir') without any details on permissions, rate limits, data format, pagination, or what 'historique des positions' entails. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's behavior beyond a basic read operation.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 of a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output format, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient.

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 all three parameters ('input', 'date_from', 'date_to') documented as 'Seed keyword'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as clarifying the purpose of 'input' or date formats. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 'Obtenir l’historique des positions des domaines' (Get the history of domain positions) restates the tool name 'get_domains_history_positions' in French, making it essentially tautological. It specifies the verb 'obtenir' (get) and resource 'domaines' (domains) with 'historique des positions' (history of positions), but doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'get_domains_positions' or 'get_domains_visibility_trends' which might provide related data.

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. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools like 'get_domains_positions' and 'get_domains_visibility_trends', the lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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