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 doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description only states what it does, not how it behaves, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 action. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized for its minimal content. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'main pages' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral context. For a tool with one parameter but unclear output, more information is needed to be fully helpful.

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% coverage with a parameter 'input' described as 'Seed keyword'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain how the seed keyword relates to obtaining main pages. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context.

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 pages principales des domaines' (Get the main pages of domains) states a clear verb ('obtenir') and resource ('pages principales des domaines'), but it's vague about what 'main pages' means and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_domains_overview' or 'get_domains_history_pages'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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' or 'get_domains_history_pages', the description doesn't indicate context, exclusions, or prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the name, not explained.

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