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. It states 'Retrieve' and 'view,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include (e.g., script content, metadata). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a second sentence for minimal additional context. Both sentences are necessary and efficient, with zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., script content, metadata, status) or address potential behavioral aspects like error cases. For a retrieval tool, this leaves the agent guessing about the output format and operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'postInstallScriptId' well-documented in the schema as an integer ID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's used to 'view specific' details, which aligns with but doesn't enhance the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('post-install script by its ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'VPS_getPostInstallScriptsV1' (plural), which likely lists multiple scripts versus retrieving a specific one by ID.

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 guidance with 'Use this endpoint to view specific automation script details,' which implies usage for viewing details of a known script ID. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'VPS_getPostInstallScriptsV1' for listing scripts) or prerequisites, offering no clear decision-making context.

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