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 what the tool does ('obtenir les tendances') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns historical data, or involves pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 'tendances' (trends) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., time-series data, metrics), how to interpret 'visibility', or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely involves data analysis over time, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 one parameter 'input' described as 'Specific data fields to request'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what 'tendances de visibilité' entails or what fields might be relevant. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with extra 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 tendances de visibilité des domaines' (Get domain visibility trends) states a clear verb ('obtenir') and resource ('tendances de visibilité des domaines'), but it's vague about what 'visibility trends' specifically means. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_domains_overview' or 'get_domains_history_positions', which might also provide visibility-related data. The purpose is understandable 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to domains (e.g., 'get_domains_overview', 'get_domains_history_positions'), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's preferred. Usage is implied only by the name, but no explicit context 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.