VPS_getVirtualMachinesV1Lists all available VPS instances in your Hostinger account, giving you a clear view of current virtual machines and their statuses.
Retrieve all available virtual machines.
Use this endpoint to view available VPS instances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2v0.2.1v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation retrieves all VMs, but does not explain response format, pagination, or what 'available' means. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 first sentence is clear and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Use this endpoint to view available VPS instances') is redundant repetition of the first. Two sentences could be collapsed into one without loss.
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 parameterless list, the basic action and resource are covered, and the read-only annotations cover the behavioral profile. However, with no output schema, the description leaves ambiguous what fields each VM entry contains and whether 'available' means all VMs or only those in a certain state.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add; the schema is trivially complete. The description correctly makes no parameter claims.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('virtual machines'/'VPS instances') and specifies scope ('all available'). It distinguishes from sibling VPS_getVirtualMachineDetailsV1 by emphasizing the list/plural nature, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like VPS_getVirtualMachineDetailsV1. The sentence 'Use this endpoint to view available VPS instances' merely restates the purpose and offers no exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.