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 only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. 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, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it's under-specified for the tool's complexity, as it lacks details that would help an agent use it effectively, slightly reducing its utility despite the brevity.

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 (inferred from sibling tools and lack of output schema), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, it fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly or what to expect in return, making it inadequate for reliable use.

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 parameter 'input' documented as 'Specific data fields to request'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain what 'input' should contain (e.g., what data fields are valid) or how it relates to getting keywords. 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Obtenir les meilleurs mots-clés de la page' (Get the best keywords of the page), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'obtenir' (get) and resource 'mots-clés de la page' (keywords of the page), but doesn't clarify what 'best' means or how it differs from sibling tools like get_keywords_bulk or get_keywords_related, making it moderately helpful but lacking specificity.

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 related to keywords (e.g., get_keywords_bulk, get_keywords_related, get_keywords_overview), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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