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 the tool retrieves public keys but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, what format the keys are returned in, whether it's paginated (though the schema hints at pagination with a 'page' parameter), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, and the second adds context. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly addressing the pagination parameter implied by the schema.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of keys. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a retrieval tool with potential complexity (e.g., pagination), more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('page' described as 'Page number'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or pagination details. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 with 'Retrieve public keys associated with your account' and specifies they are 'SSH keys for VPS authentication'. It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_attachPublicKeyV1 or VPS_deletePublicKeyV1 by focusing on retrieval rather than modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with VPS_getAttachedPublicKeysV1, which might be a similar sibling tool.

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 implies usage context with 'to view available SSH keys for VPS authentication', suggesting it's for authentication purposes. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like VPS_getAttachedPublicKeysV1 or other VPS-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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