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. It mentions the tool is for retrieval/viewing, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, 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 concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context, but it's efficient overall.

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 historical data), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output format. It's complete enough for a simple read operation but could be improved with more context.

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%, with both parameters ('domain' and 'snapshotId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve particular DNS snapshot with contents of DNS zone records.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('DNS snapshot'), and scope ('contents of DNS zone records'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like DNS_getDNSRecordsV1 or DNS_getDNSSnapshotListV1, which would require a 5.

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 historical DNS configurations for domains.' This implies when to use it (for historical views) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like DNS_getDNSRecordsV1 for current records. It offers implied guidance rather than explicit rules.

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