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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Trouver des mots-clés' implies a read-only search operation but reveals nothing about rate limits, authentication needs, output format, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is a critical 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 extremely concise—a single French phrase—and front-loaded with the core action. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification; while structurally efficient, it lacks necessary detail for effective tool use.

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 of having 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how inputs interact, or behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively in this crowded toolset.

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 all parameters documented as 'Seed keyword'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify the relationship between 'keyword' (singular) and 'keywords' (array), what 'keywords_sources' entails, or how these inputs affect the search. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but no additional value is provided.

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 'Trouver des mots-clés' (Find keywords) restates the tool name 'get_keywords_find' in French, making it essentially tautological. It lacks specificity about what kind of keywords are found, how they're found, or what distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_keywords_related', 'get_keywords_similar', or 'get_keywords_synonyms'. The purpose is vague without differentiation from alternatives.

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 the many sibling keyword tools (e.g., get_keywords_related, get_keywords_similar, get_keywords_bulk). The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no basis for selection among similar-sounding alternatives.

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