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 implies a read-only operation ('obtenir' - get) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, output format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide essential context for safe and effective use.

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. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity. The structure is straightforward but lacks front-loading of critical details.

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 'correspondance' means in terms of return values (e.g., list of matching keywords with metrics), behavioral constraints, or how it fits among sibling keyword tools. For a tool in a crowded namespace, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 the single parameter 'keyword' documented as 'Seed keyword'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format examples, language constraints, or how it influences matches). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 la correspondance des mots-clés' (Get keyword matches) restates the tool name 'get_keywords_match' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the action ('obtenir' - get) and resource ('correspondance des mots-clés' - keyword matches), but lacks specificity about what 'matches' entails (e.g., related keywords, search volume matches, competitor matches) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keywords_related' or 'get_keywords_similar'. This is borderline tautological with only basic verb+resource.

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. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given multiple sibling tools for keywords (e.g., 'get_keywords_related', 'get_keywords_similar', 'get_keywords_bulk'), the absence of usage guidelines 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.