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. It only states the action ('obtenir') without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 in French, front-loaded with the core action. However, it's overly terse and under-specified, lacking necessary details that would make it genuinely helpful, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the 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 vague description, the tool is incomplete for effective use. The description fails to compensate for missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior, output, and differentiation from siblings in a keyword-heavy context.

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 one parameter ('keyword') documented as 'Seed keyword'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, not explaining how the seed keyword influences results or what types of keywords are valid. 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 les mots-clés associés' (Get related keywords) states a general purpose but is vague. It specifies a verb ('obtenir') and resource ('mots-clés associés'), but doesn't clarify what 'associated' means (e.g., semantically related, co-occurring, or competitor keywords) or distinguish it from sibling tools like get_keywords_similar or get_keywords_synonyms.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_keywords_similar or get_keywords_synonyms. The description implies a context of keyword research but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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