hostinger-api-mcp

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 mentions 'retrieve' and 'view,' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. There is no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful for a complete understanding, but it's not critically incomplete.

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 one parameter 'domain' described as 'Domain name.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., 'example.com') or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 snapshots for a domain.' It specifies the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'DNS snapshots,' making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'DNS_getDNSSnapshotV1' (which likely retrieves a specific snapshot) or 'DNS_restoreDNSSnapshotV1' (which restores one), leaving room for ambiguity in sibling context.

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 some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to view available DNS backup points for restoration.' This implies it's for viewing snapshots before restoration, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'DNS_getDNSSnapshotV1' for a single snapshot) or any prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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