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. 'Extraire les mots-clés' implies a read operation but gives no information about permissions, rate limits, data sources, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this description fails to provide essential behavioral context needed for reliable invocation.

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?

While concise with a single phrase, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary context and differentiation that would help an agent use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the minimal content doesn't fulfill the description's purpose.

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 implied by sibling tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'scrap' means, what data source is used, what the extraction process involves, or what format the results take. For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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 'keywords' parameter documented as 'Specific data fields to request'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this schema information. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 'Extraire les mots-clés' (Extract keywords) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_keywords_scrap' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource is being extracted from, what 'scrap' refers to, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'get_keywords_bulk' or 'get_keywords_find'. The purpose remains vague and indistinguishable 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'get_keywords_bulk', 'get_keywords_find', 'get_keywords_overview', and others, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions. This leaves the agent with no basis for selecting this specific tool over others in the same domain.

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