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 retrieving/viewing SSH keys, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter), error conditions, or what happens if the VM ID is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with zero waste—each sentence adds value. The first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits and output format. Without annotations or output schema, the agent might struggle with understanding the full context, such as response structure or error handling.

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 ('page' and 'virtualMachineId'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 action ('Retrieve public keys') and target resource ('attached to a specified virtual machine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_getPublicKeysV1, which might retrieve all public keys rather than those attached to a specific VM.

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 second sentence provides some context ('view SSH keys configured for specific VPS instances'), implying usage when needing SSH keys for a particular VM. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like VPS_getPublicKeysV1 or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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