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. The description only states what the tool does ('Obtenir les dates disponibles') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits - no information about whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, what format the dates are returned in, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise French description.

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 description that only states the basic purpose, this is incomplete for effective tool use. The agent needs to know what 'dates disponibles' means in practice - date range format, whether this returns historical data, future projections, or something else. For a tool querying SERP data with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what to expect.

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 single parameter 'keyword' well-described as 'Seed keyword' in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Obtenir' - Get/Obtain) and the resource ('dates disponibles des mots-clés dans les SERP' - available dates of keywords in SERP). It specifies what the tool does in a straightforward manner. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keywords_serp_compare' or 'get_keywords_serp_pageEvolution', which prevents a perfect score.

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. There are multiple keyword-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_keywords_serp_compare', 'get_keywords_serp_pageEvolution'), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific 'available dates' functionality is appropriate versus those other SERP-related tools.

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