hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete', 'remove'), which is critical. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether deletions are reversible, rate limits, or error handling. The mention of filtering and partial deletion alternatives adds some context but leaves gaps in operational behavior.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with four sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, explaining filtering, offering an alternative for edge cases, and reinforcing usage. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. Minor room for improvement in tightening phrasing, but overall efficient.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the destructive nature and filtering logic but misses details on authentication, side effects, and response format. For a deletion tool, this leaves the agent with incomplete operational context, though the core use case is clear.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'domain', which is documented as 'Domain name'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying filtering via 'name' and 'type', but these are not part of the input schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete DNS records') and resource ('for the selected domain'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like DNS_resetDNSRecordsV1 by specifying deletion of specific records rather than resetting all. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with DNS_updateDNSRecordsV1 beyond mentioning it as an alternative for partial deletions.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool (to remove specific DNS records) and mentions an alternative ('Update zone records' endpoint) for partial deletions when multiple records share the same name and type. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. DNS_resetDNSRecordsV1 for bulk resets), but the context is sufficient for informed selection.

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