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 success (200) and error (422) response codes, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., if validation itself modifies data), or what happens on failure beyond the error code. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that are front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then details response behavior, and ends with usage guidance. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. With no output schema, it doesn't describe return values beyond status codes, which is a minor shortfall for a validation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (domain, overwrite, zone). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with no param info in 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: 'Validate DNS records prior to update for the selected domain.' It specifies the action (validate) and resource (DNS records for a domain). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like DNS_updateDNSRecordsV1 or DNS_getDNSRecordsV1 beyond mentioning 'prior to update,' which is good but not fully explicit about 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 provides clear context for usage: 'Use this endpoint to verify DNS record validity before applying changes.' This indicates when to use it (before updates) and implies an alternative (DNS_updateDNSRecordsV1 for actual updates). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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