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 is for retrieval/viewing, which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of backups with details). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and usage. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be integrated more seamlessly, and there is room for slight improvement in flow.

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 (retrieving backups with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or output structure, which are important for a tool with parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('virtualMachineId' and 'page'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or providing examples. Since schema coverage is high, 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('backups for a specified virtual machine'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'VPS_getSnapshotV1' or 'VPS_restoreBackupV1', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus others.

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 some context with 'Use this endpoint to view available backup points for VPS data recovery,' implying usage for viewing backups. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'VPS_getSnapshotV1' or 'VPS_restoreBackupV1', and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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