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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'view current VPS snapshot information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. 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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines).

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it falls short of being fully complete for agent invocation.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'virtualMachineId' clearly documented as 'Virtual Machine ID' and type 'integer'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('snapshot for a specified virtual machine'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'VPS_getSnapshotV1' (which appears to be the same tool based on the name) or other VPS-related get tools, though the context suggests it's distinct from tools like 'VPS_getVirtualMachineDetailsV1'.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Use this endpoint to view current VPS snapshot information,' which suggests it's for viewing purposes. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'VPS_getVirtualMachineDetailsV1' or other snapshot-related tools like 'VPS_createSnapshotV1'), and doesn't 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.