hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Retrieves'), which is appropriate. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what happens if the virtual machine doesn't exist. The description adds basic context about what information is returned but lacks 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 perfectly structured with three concise sentences: the core purpose, what information is returned, and when to use it. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 simple read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it lacks details about the return format (structure of the list, fields in 'basic information'), error handling, or authentication requirements that would be helpful for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 'virtualMachineId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, nor does it need to since the schema fully covers the parameter. The baseline score of 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 specific action ('Retrieves a list'), resource ('Docker Compose projects'), and scope ('currently deployed on the virtual machine'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like VPS_getProjectContainersV1 or VPS_getProjectLogsV1 by focusing on the overview of all projects rather than specific project details or components.

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 this tool ('to get an overview of all Docker projects on your VPS instance'), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for general inventory purposes rather than detailed inspection of individual projects.

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