hostinger-api-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'view' and 'available automation scripts', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by the 'page' parameter), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if no scripts exist. For a tool with no 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage context. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

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 (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavior, response format, or error handling. With no annotations and incomplete behavioral transparency, it's adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results or handle edge cases.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'page' documented as 'Page number' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining pagination behavior or default values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'post-install scripts associated with your account', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_getPostInstallScriptV1 (singular) or other VPS_get* tools, which would require more specific scope clarification.

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 second sentence provides implied usage context ('to view available automation scripts for VPS deployment'), suggesting this is for browsing scripts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like VPS_getPostInstallScriptV1 (singular) or when not to use it (e.g., for creating scripts). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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