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 'revert,' implying a mutation that could be destructive, but doesn't specify if this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects DNS propagation time, or has rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, 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 complexity of a DNS restoration tool (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, which are critical for an agent to use this tool correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('domain' and 'snapshotId'). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 with a specific verb ('restore') and resource ('DNS zone to the selected snapshot'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like DNS_resetDNSRecordsV1 or DNS_updateDNSRecordsV1, which also modify DNS configurations, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 implies usage by stating 'Use this endpoint to revert domain DNS to a previous configuration,' which suggests it's for reverting changes. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like DNS_resetDNSRecordsV1 or DNS_updateDNSRecordsV1, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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