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 clearly indicates this is a destructive operation ('Delete', 'Once deleted') and explains the functional impact on reverse DNS. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the deletion is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this provides basic but incomplete behavioral context.

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 perfectly structured with three concise sentences: the core action, the consequence, and the usage context. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and maintains excellent information density throughout.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the tool's purpose, effect, and usage context. It explains what happens after deletion and when to use the tool. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or error handling, but given the tool's relative simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.

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 single parameter 'virtualMachineId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 PTR record') and resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like VPS_createPTRRecordV1 (create) and DNS_deleteDNSRecordsV1 (different DNS record type). 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to remove reverse DNS configuration from VPS instances') and explains the consequence of using it ('reverse DNS lookups... will no longer return the previously configured hostname'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like VPS_createPTRRecordV1 for comparison.

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