hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies this as a read operation ('Retrieve', 'view') and describes what information is returned ('details about each action'), but lacks specifics about pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. It adds useful context about action types but doesn't fully compensate for missing 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 three well-structured sentences: purpose, elaboration, and usage context. Every sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition.

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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and why to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details about return format (structure of action objects), error handling, and behavioral constraints like rate limits. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description mentions filtering by virtual machine and implies pagination through the context of viewing history, but doesn't add meaningful semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format of virtualMachineId, pagination strategy). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Retrieve actions performed'), the resource ('on a specified virtual machine'), and scope ('history of these actions'). It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_getActionDetailsV1 (which likely gets details of a single action) by focusing on listing multiple actions with filtering by virtual machine.

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 usage ('to view VPS operation history and troubleshoot issues'), but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for historical analysis rather than real-time monitoring, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to similar tools like VPS_getActionDetailsV1.

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