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 states this is for retrieval/viewing, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, how results are formatted (list vs paginated), rate limits, or what 'available' means (e.g., active vs all states). The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context 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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the tool's function. However, the second sentence slightly repeats the first without adding substantial new information, preventing a perfect score.

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 complexity (retrieving multiple virtual machines in a VPS context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., VM IDs, statuses, specs), how results are structured, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, filtering options). For a read operation with zero structured metadata, more descriptive context is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 'virtual machines' with 'all available' specifying scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like VPS_getVirtualMachineDetailsV1 by indicating this returns multiple instances rather than details of one. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like VPS_getProjectListV1 or VPS_getFirewallListV1.

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 'Use this endpoint to view available VPS instances' provides implied context that this is for viewing/listing purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like VPS_getVirtualMachineDetailsV1 for specific instances, or mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements. No explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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