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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., structured data, raw text). For a bulk operation with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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, with no wasted words. However, it's front-loaded with minimal detail, which under-specifies rather than being optimally concise. It earns a 4 for brevity but loses points for lacking essential 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 description, this is incomplete for a bulk operation tool. The agent lacks critical context: what the tool returns, behavioral traits, or how it differs from siblings. For a 1-param tool with 100% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for other 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%, with the parameter 'keywords' documented as 'Specific data fields to request'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as clarifying the array's purpose (e.g., list of keyword terms to fetch data for) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 des mots-clés en masse' (Get keywords in bulk) states a general action but lacks specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'mots-clés' refers to (e.g., SEO keywords, content tags) or what 'en masse' entails (e.g., batch retrieval, bulk processing). While it distinguishes from non-bulk siblings like 'get_keywords_find', it's too vague for precise understanding.

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 siblings like 'get_keywords_find', 'get_keywords_overview', and 'get_keywords_related', the description doesn't indicate context (e.g., use for batch keyword data vs. single searches) or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate scenarios.

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