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. The description mentions 'évolution' (evolution) which implies tracking changes over time, but it doesn't specify what data is returned, whether it's a read-only operation, if there are rate limits, or any authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates, though it could be more informative. There's no unnecessary verbosity or structural issues.

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 tool's complexity (tracking SERP evolution over time with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'évolution' means in practice, what format the results take, or how the parameters interact. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured metadata, the description should provide more complete 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 all four parameters documented in the schema as 'Seed keyword'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain what 'first_date' and 'second_date' represent in the context of evolution tracking, or how 'url' relates to keyword SERP analysis. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Obtenir l'évolution des pages SERP des mots-clés' (Get the evolution of SERP pages for keywords), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_keywords_serp_compare' or 'get_keywords_serp_availableDates', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus those 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 sibling tools like 'get_keywords_serp_compare' and 'get_keywords_serp_availableDates' that seem related to SERP/keyword analysis, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred over those options.

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