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 the tool can 'create or update,' indicating mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage context. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from context more clearly) to enhance readability.

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 mutation tool (create/update PTR records) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, and expected outcomes, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a real-world scenario.

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 parameter 'virtualMachineId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the 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 action ('Create or update a PTR record') and the target resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_deletePTRRecordV1, which handles deletion, or DNS-related tools that manage other record types, so it lacks full sibling distinction.

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 context by stating 'configure reverse DNS lookup for VPS IP addresses,' which suggests when this tool is applicable. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs. update, or how it differs from DNS tools), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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