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. It indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieve') and specifies the types of metrics returned, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, data format, time granularity, or whether it's a real-time vs. aggregated query. It provides basic context but misses key operational details.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bulleted list of metrics is efficient, and the usage guidance sentence adds value without redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with zero waste.

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?

For a read-only metrics retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It doesn't describe the return format, data structure, timezone handling for dates, or error conditions. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral and response details would be helpful for an agent.

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 all three parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds context by mentioning 'historical metrics' and 'over time', which implies the date parameters define a time range, but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already states about parameter purposes.

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 specific action ('Retrieve historical metrics') and resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on metrics retrieval rather than management operations like VPS_getVirtualMachineDetailsV1 or VPS_getActionsV1. The list of included metrics provides concrete scope.

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 the tool ('to monitor VPS performance and resource utilization over time'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. It implies usage for historical monitoring but lacks exclusion guidance.

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