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 tool deletes a snapshot, implying a destructive operation, but lacks details on permissions required, irreversibility, error conditions, or response format. 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence is somewhat redundant but not wasteful. Overall, it's efficiently structured with minimal fluff.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context such as confirmation of deletion, impact on the VM, error handling, or return values. Given the complexity and risk of deletion, more guidance is needed.

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 single parameter 'virtualMachineId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying a snapshot is associated with a VM, which is already inferred 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 ('Delete') and target resource ('snapshot of a specified virtual machine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'VPS_deleteFirewallV1' or 'VPS_deleteProjectV1' beyond specifying the resource type.

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 VPS snapshots,' which is essentially a restatement of the purpose. It offers no context on when to use this versus alternatives like 'VPS_restoreSnapshotV1' or 'VPS_getSnapshotV1,' nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences.

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