hostinger-api-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that setup failures require manual intervention via hPanel and that a default payment method is used if none is provided, adding some context. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a paid transaction, potential costs, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens upon success (e.g., VM provisioning time). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that involves purchasing and setup.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the purpose, the second provides fallback instructions, and the third clarifies payment and usage. There is some redundancy (e.g., 'Purchase and setup' and 'create new VPS instances'), but overall, it is efficient with zero wasted sentences.

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 complexity of a purchase and setup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., costs, authentication), does not explain the return values or success outcomes, and offers minimal guidance on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. For a tool that likely involves financial transactions and resource creation, this is inadequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (item_id, setup, coupons, payment_method_id). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the payment_method_id behavior (default used if not provided) and mentions coupons indirectly, but does not explain the semantics of 'item_id' or 'setup' parameters. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Purchase and setup a new virtual machine' and 'create new VPS instances.' It specifies the verb ('purchase and setup') and resource ('virtual machine'/'VPS instances'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'VPS_setupPurchasedVirtualMachineV1' or 'VPS_recreateVirtualMachineV1,' which might handle related but distinct operations.

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 some implied usage context: it mentions using this endpoint for creating new VPS instances and gives fallback instructions for setup failures. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'VPS_setupPurchasedVirtualMachineV1' or 'VPS_recreateVirtualMachineV1,' and does not outline prerequisites or exclusions beyond the payment method note.

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