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 mentions the action ('add a new public key') but fails to detail critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this is a mutation (likely yes, but not stated), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence and adds context in the second. Both sentences are essential, with no wasted words, making it highly 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 the tool's complexity (adding a public key, likely a mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper invocation.

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 both parameters (key and name) documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter details beyond implying the key is for SSH authentication, which is minimal value. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Add a new public key to your account' specifies the verb (add) and resource (public key), and 'register SSH keys for VPS authentication' provides additional context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_attachPublicKeyV1 or VPS_deletePublicKeyV1, which would require a 5.

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 with 'register SSH keys for VPS authentication,' suggesting when this tool is relevant. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like VPS_attachPublicKeyV1 or prerequisites such as account permissions, leaving room for improvement.

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