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 only states the action ('obtenir') without any details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects. For a tool with unknown behavior and no annotations, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent uninformed about how the tool operates.

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, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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 (a keyword similarity tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, making it inadequate for the agent to understand how to effectively invoke and interpret results from this tool in a server with many sibling keyword tools.

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 single parameter 'keyword' documented as 'Seed keyword'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without extra help from the description.

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 des mots-clés similaires' (Get similar keywords) restates the tool name 'get_keywords_similar' in French, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'obtenir' (get) and resource 'mots-clés similaires' (similar keywords), but doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_keywords_related' or 'get_keywords_synonyms' that might serve similar purposes, leaving the agent uncertain about which tool to use for keyword similarity tasks.

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 siblings like 'get_keywords_related' and 'get_keywords_synonyms' that likely handle keyword relationships, the agent receives no explicit or implied context for choosing this tool, leading to potential misuse or confusion in tool selection.

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