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 describes a key behavioral trait: 'Any virtual machine that has this firewall activated will automatically have it deactivated,' which warns of cascading effects. However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, potential rate limits, or confirmation prompts, leaving some gaps for a destructive operation.

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 action in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral context and usage guidance in two additional sentences. Each sentence earns its place by adding value: the first states the purpose, the second warns of side effects, and the third provides usage context, with zero wasted words.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, key behavioral impact, and usage context. However, it lacks details on error conditions, return values, or prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), which would be helpful for full contextual understanding in the absence of structured data.

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 the single parameter 'firewallId' documented as 'Firewall ID' of type integer. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as where to find the ID or format examples. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not need to.

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 ('Delete a specified firewall') and identifies the resource ('firewall'), making the purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like VPS_deactivateFirewallV1 by specifying permanent removal rather than temporary deactivation, and from VPS_deleteFirewallRuleV1 by targeting the entire firewall configuration rather than individual rules.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to remove unused firewall configurations'), which implicitly suggests it should not be used for active firewalls without consideration of the deactivation effect. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., VPS_deactivateFirewallV1 for temporary disabling) or state when not to use it, such as for firewalls currently protecting critical resources.

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