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. It states the action ('Obtenir') but doesn't reveal any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves pagination. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's intent.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'site structure' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the operation and expected outcomes to be adequately complete.

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 for its 2 parameters ('keyword' and 'keywords'), both described as 'Seed keyword'. The description adds no meaning beyond this, not explaining the relationship between the two parameters (e.g., if one is singular and the other an array for bulk processing). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 la structure du site des mots-clés' (Get the site structure of keywords) states a purpose but is vague. It specifies a verb ('Obtenir') and resource ('structure du site des mots-clés'), but doesn't clarify what 'site structure' means in this context or how it differs from sibling tools like get_keywords_related or get_keywords_similar. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity for differentiation.

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 many sibling tools focused on keywords (e.g., get_keywords_related, get_keywords_overview), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, leaving the agent to guess based on naming patterns.

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