Haloscan MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('obtain user credit information') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, what format the credit information returns, whether it has rate limits, or if it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.

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 that this is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but provides no information about what 'credit information' includes, the format of the response, authentication requirements, or any behavioral context. For a tool that presumably returns user account data, this leaves significant gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter documentation.

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 informations de crédit de l'utilisateur' clearly states the tool's purpose as retrieving user credit information. It specifies the verb 'obtenir' (get) and the resource 'informations de crédit de l'utilisateur' (user credit information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which all appear to be domain/keyword-related except for set_api_key, so the distinction is implicit rather than explicit.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. While the tool name and description suggest it's for user credit info (unlike sibling tools focused on domains/keywords), this distinction isn't explicitly stated in the description itself.

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