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 the action without details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how it behaves beyond the basic operation.

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, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by including key details, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity, earning a high score for brevity.

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 'questions' means, the format of the output, or any behavioral traits. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'keyword' described as 'Seed keyword'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 questions liées aux mots-clés' (Get questions related to keywords) states the action and resource but is vague about scope and format. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keywords_related' or 'get_keywords_similar', which might have overlapping functions. The purpose is clear at a basic level 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_keywords_related' and 'get_keywords_similar', the description doesn't explain context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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