hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels at disclosing critical behavioral traits. It explicitly states the irreversible nature of the operation, data loss consequences, deletion of snapshots, password validation requirements, and that a random password will be generated if not provided. This covers safety, side effects, and operational constraints comprehensively.

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 well-structured with clear sections (general description, password requirements, warning, usage guidance). It's appropriately sized for a destructive operation, though the password requirements section is quite detailed. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering behavioral aspects, consequences, and parameter context. The main gap is lack of information about return values or response format, but given the complexity and risk profile, the description provides substantial completeness.

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%, providing good parameter documentation. The description adds value by explaining password requirements in detail (length, character types, leak checking) and clarifying that password won't be shown in response, but doesn't add meaningful context for template_id or post_install_script_id beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('recreate a virtual machine from scratch') and resource ('virtual machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like restart, restore, or start operations. It explicitly mentions reinstalling the OS and resetting to initial state, which clarifies the scope beyond basic 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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to completely rebuild VPS instances with fresh OS installation'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies this is for destructive resets, but lacks explicit comparison to tools like restoreSnapshotV1 or restartVirtualMachineV1.

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