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 that multiple keys can be attached and the purpose (SSH authentication), which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether this is a safe operation, rate limits, or what happens on failure, leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences, each adding value: the core action, a clarification about multiple keys, and the usage context. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects) and return values. For a mutation tool with two parameters, this is adequate but leaves gaps in completeness.

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 both parameters (ids and virtualMachineId). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('attach'), the resource ('existing public keys from your account'), and the target ('specified virtual machine'). It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_createPublicKeyV1 (creates new keys) and VPS_deletePublicKeyV1 (removes keys), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 when to use this tool ('to enable SSH key authentication for VPS instances'), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., using VPS_createPublicKeyV1 first if keys don't exist), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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