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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves/view firewalls, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite a 'page' parameter), or what 'available' means (e.g., active vs. all firewalls). The description lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and basic usage. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a usage hint.

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 (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'available firewalls' includes, how pagination works, authentication needs, or return format. For a list tool with behavioral unknowns and no output schema, more context is needed to be complete.

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 (the 'page' parameter is documented as 'Page number'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, providing no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already states. It neither compensates for gaps nor adds value over the structured data.

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 all available firewalls' specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (firewalls). It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_getFirewallDetailsV1 (which gets details of a specific firewall) and VPS_createNewFirewallV1 (which creates new firewalls), but doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The second sentence 'Use this endpoint to view existing firewall configurations' reinforces the purpose without adding new differentiation.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to view existing firewall configurations' implies it's for viewing, but doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives like VPS_getFirewallDetailsV1 for specific firewall details or VPS_getVirtualMachinesV1 for related resources. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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