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 what the tool does ('get synonyms') without revealing any behavioral traits: no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise - a single French sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. For a tool that presumably returns synonym data, there's no information about the response format, structure, or what the agent can expect. The description does the minimum job of stating the purpose but fails to provide the context needed for effective tool use in a complex sibling environment.

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 parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't clarify what constitutes a valid keyword, format requirements, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 les synonymes des mots-clés' clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve synonyms for keywords. It uses a specific verb ('Obtenir' - get/retrieve) and identifies the resource ('synonymes des mots-clés'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keywords_related' or 'get_keywords_similar', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 multiple sibling tools focused on keywords (e.g., get_keywords_related, get_keywords_similar, get_keywords_find), there's no indication of what distinguishes this synonym-focused tool from those potentially related tools. The agent receives no usage context or exclusions.

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