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 states this is a retrieval/view operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety aspects like no side effects or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in understanding its 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: one stating the purpose and another providing usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be more integrated or omitted if the first suffices, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does and basic usage but misses behavioral details like return format or error handling. For a read-only tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement in context.

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 (firewallId is described as 'Firewall ID'), so the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve firewall by its ID and rules associated with it.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('firewall'), and scope ('rules associated with it'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_getFirewallListV1, which likely lists multiple firewalls rather than retrieving details for a specific one.

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 guidance: 'Use this endpoint to view specific firewall configuration and rules.' This implies usage when details for a particular firewall are needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like VPS_getFirewallListV1 or mention prerequisites such as needing a firewall ID. The guidance is present but lacks specificity about alternatives or exclusions.

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