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. However, it only states the action ('compare') without any details on what the tool does (e.g., returns comparison data, requires API keys, has rate limits, or is read-only). This is insufficient 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, vague sentence in French that does not front-load critical information. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to convey purpose or usage effectively. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one adds minimal value.

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 of keyword comparison, lack of annotations, no output schema, and vague description, this is incomplete. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or when to use it, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly without additional 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 both parameters ('keyword' and 'period') documented in the schema as 'Seed keyword'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'period' refers to (e.g., date range, time frame) or how the comparison uses these inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 'Comparer les mots-clés dans les SERP' (Compare keywords in SERPs) is vague and tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'get_keywords_serp_compare' in French. It lacks specificity about what 'compare' entails (e.g., ranking, frequency, trends) and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_keywords_overview' or 'get_keywords_related', which might also involve keyword analysis.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools. This leaves the agent with no information to decide between this and other keyword-related tools in the list.

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