hostinger-api-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a new firewall,' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or rate limits. The mention of 'VPS security' adds some context, but critical operational details are missing 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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and to the point. However, the second sentence ('Use this endpoint...') is somewhat redundant with the first, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, and return values, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in operational 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 the single parameter 'name' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints on the name or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Create a new firewall') and resource ('firewall configurations for VPS security'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_activateFirewallV1 or VPS_deactivateFirewallV1, which would require more specific language about what distinguishes creation from activation/deactivation.

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 minimal guidance with 'Use this endpoint to set up new firewall configurations for VPS security,' which implies usage for setup but lacks explicit when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or alternatives. No comparison to sibling tools like VPS_getFirewallListV1 or VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1 is provided, leaving the agent without clear decision-making context.

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