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 of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve') and implies it's safe for viewing options, but doesn't mention potential side effects like rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the data is cached/real-time. The description adds basic context but lacks detailed behavioral traits that would help an agent use it effectively.

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: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured without redundant information. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but lacks details about return format, data structure, or any behavioral constraints. For a read-only tool with no parameters, this is acceptable but leaves room for more completeness regarding output expectations.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters to document, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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 'all available data centers', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'VPS_getTemplatesV1' or 'VPS_getVirtualMachinesV1' that might also provide location-related information, though those appear to serve different purposes.

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 when to use this tool: 'to view location options before deploying VPS instances.' This gives practical guidance on its intended use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as if other tools might provide overlapping data center information.

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