hostinger-api-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'view current DNS configuration,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state this or disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the records are returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit bullet points for different aspects.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving DNS records), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and provides basic usage context, but lacks details about return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an agent. The 100% schema coverage helps, but overall completeness is limited.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'domain' has a clear description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve DNS zone records for a specific domain.' It includes a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('DNS zone records'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling DNS tools like DNS_getDNSSnapshotV1 or DNS_validateDNSRecordsV1, which prevents a perfect score.

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 second sentence provides some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to view current DNS configuration for domain management.' This implies the tool is for viewing/management purposes, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like DNS_getDNSSnapshotV1 or DNS_updateDNSRecordsV1. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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