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. It only states the action ('obtenir') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves pagination. For a tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical context given the lack of annotations and many sibling tools, making it slightly under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 tool's complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, usage context, or behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 both parameters ('input' as 'Seed keyword' and 'keywords' as 'Specific data fields to request') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 when 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 les mots-clés des domaines' (Get domain keywords) states a clear verb ('obtenir' - get) and resource ('mots-clés des domaines' - domain keywords), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_domains_overview' or 'get_keywords_related'. It doesn't specify what kind of keywords or for what purpose.

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 like 'get_domains_overview', 'get_keywords_related', and 'get_keywords_find', the description offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or distinctions from similar tools.

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