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. The description reveals nothing about what the tool actually does beyond the vague 'overview' concept. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral characteristics.

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?

While technically concise (one short sentence), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single sentence 'Obtenir un aperçu des domaines' fails to provide essential information that would help an AI agent use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one doesn't earn enough.

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 having 27 sibling tools and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. The tool appears to be part of a sophisticated domain/keyword analysis system, but the description provides no context about what an 'overview' contains, how it differs from other domain tools, or what to expect in return. With no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to compensate for these gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('input' as seed keyword and 'requested_data' as specific data fields). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters - it doesn't explain what kind of seed keyword is expected, what data fields are available, or how the parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 un aperçu des domaines' (Get an overview of domains) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_domains_overview' in French. It doesn't specify what 'overview' means or what kind of domain information is provided, nor does it distinguish this tool from its many siblings like 'get_domains_bulk', 'get_domains_keywords', or 'get_domains_positions'.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 27 sibling tools including many other domain-related tools, there's no indication of what makes 'overview' different from 'bulk', 'keywords', 'positions', or other domain queries. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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