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 states the action is to 'deactivate' and 'remove firewall protection,' implying a mutation that reduces security, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's reversible (e.g., via VPS_activateFirewallV1), rate limits, or side effects (e.g., impact on VM connectivity). This is inadequate 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a second sentence for minimal guidance, making it efficient. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and usage, though the second could be more informative. There's no wasted text, but it borders on under-specification.

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 incomplete. It lacks critical context such as behavioral traits (e.g., reversibility, permissions), expected outcomes, or error conditions. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall guidance is insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions ('Firewall ID', 'Virtual Machine ID'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that these IDs specify the target resources, which is already evident from the schema. 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 ('deactivate a firewall') and target resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_activateFirewallV1 and VPS_deleteFirewallV1 by specifying deactivation rather than activation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all firewall-related tools (e.g., VPS_createFirewallRuleV1, VPS_syncFirewallV1).

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 remove firewall protection from VPS instances,' which implies when to use it but lacks explicit context. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., firewall must be active), alternatives (e.g., using VPS_deleteFirewallV1 for permanent removal), or exclusions (e.g., not for other resource types). No comparison to sibling tools like VPS_activateFirewallV1 is made.

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