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 explains the critical behavior of the 'overwrite' parameter (replace vs. update/add), which is essential for understanding the tool's impact. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens to unmatched records. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate but incomplete effort.

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 with three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the key parameter behavior, and the third provides a generic usage note. While efficient, the third sentence ('Use this endpoint to modify domain DNS configuration') is somewhat redundant with the first and could be omitted without loss of clarity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job by explaining the overwrite behavior, which is crucial. However, it lacks information on return values, error conditions, side effects (e.g., impact on DNS propagation), or dependencies. Given the complexity of DNS updates, more context would be beneficial to ensure safe and correct usage.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds semantic context for the 'overwrite' parameter by explaining its effect on existing records, which provides value beyond the schema's technical description. However, it does not add meaning for 'domain' or 'zone' parameters. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Update DNS records for the selected domain.' It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('DNS records'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like DNS_deleteDNSRecordsV1 or DNS_resetDNSRecordsV1, which handle deletion or resetting of DNS records. This omission 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 description provides implied usage guidance by explaining the effect of the 'overwrite' parameter, which helps distinguish between updating vs. replacing records. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like DNS_deleteDNSRecordsV1 or DNS_resetDNSRecordsV1, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The final sentence ('Use this endpoint to modify domain DNS configuration') is generic and adds little value.

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