hostinger-api-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Delete' and 'remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether deletion is irreversible, error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap 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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides usage context without unnecessary details, making it well-structured and concise.

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 complexity of a deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, success/error responses) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data, making it inadequate for safe and informed tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'postInstallScriptId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a post-install script from your account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_deleteProjectV1 or VPS_deleteSnapshotV1, which are also deletion operations in the same VPS category, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Use this endpoint to remove unused automation scripts,' which suggests when to use it (for removing unused scripts). However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, alternatives (e.g., compared to VPS_updatePostInstallScriptV1), or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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