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. It only states the purpose without mentioning if it's a read/write operation, authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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, concise sentence, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It front-loads the purpose but lacks necessary details, making it too brief for effective tool selection.

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 tool with 2 required parameters. The agent cannot infer behavior, output, or proper usage, especially with many sibling tools, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 both parameters ('keyword' and 'requested_data') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 un aperçu des mots-clés' (Get an overview of keywords) restates the tool name 'get_keywords_overview' almost verbatim, making it a tautology. It doesn't specify what 'aperçu' (overview) entails or what resource it operates on beyond 'keywords', nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keywords_bulk', 'get_keywords_find', or 'get_keywords_related'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_keywords_bulk' and 'get_keywords_related', the description fails to provide any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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