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 without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it's under-specified rather than concise, as it lacks necessary details for clarity in a multi-tool 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose amidst many siblings, the description is incomplete. It fails to compensate for missing structured data, leaving critical gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and output.

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 one parameter 'input' described as 'Seed keyword'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain how the seed keyword relates to domain positions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 les positions des domaines' (Get domain positions) states the action (obtain) and resource (domain positions), but it's vague about what 'positions' means (e.g., search rankings, geographical locations, organizational roles). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_domains_history_positions' or 'get_domains_overview', leaving ambiguity in 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 many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_domains_competitors', 'get_domains_history_positions'), the description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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