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 indicates this is a read operation ('retrieve', 'view'), which implies it's likely non-destructive and safe. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 guidance. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines what the tool does, and the second explains when to use it. There's no wasted text, and it's structured for quick comprehension.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only tool with no structured data, it meets minimum viability but could be more informative.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters. It correctly avoids discussing inputs, making it appropriately focused. A baseline of 4 is applied as there are no parameters to document.

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: 'Retrieve available OS templates for virtual machines.' It specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (OS templates), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'VPS_getTemplateDetailsV1', which might retrieve details about a specific template rather than listing available ones.

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 usage context: 'Use this endpoint to view operating system options before creating or recreating VPS instances.' This tells the agent when to use this tool—specifically for viewing options prior to creation/recreation actions. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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