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 effectively explains the snapshot's purpose and includes a critical warning about overwriting existing snapshots. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like temporary VM performance impact during snapshot creation, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which would be valuable 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: explaining what a snapshot is, its use cases, a critical warning, and explicit usage guidance. There's no redundant information, and the bold formatting effectively highlights the most important behavioral warning.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the operation's purpose and includes a crucial behavioral warning. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., snapshot ID, success status) or mention potential errors, which would help an agent understand the complete interaction.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter (virtualMachineId) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information 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 specific action ('create a snapshot') and target resource ('specified virtual machine'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like VPS_deleteSnapshotV1, VPS_getSnapshotV1, and VPS_restoreSnapshotV1. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for backup and recovery purposes') and provides context about its usefulness ('backup purposes, system recovery, and testing changes'). However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as VPS_getSnapshotV1 for viewing snapshots or VPS_restoreSnapshotV1 for restoring them.

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