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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a reset operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to existing custom configurations, potential downtime or service interruption, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the main action. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the two sentences more seamlessly.

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 this is a mutation tool (resetting configurations) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'default value' means specifically, whether the reset is reversible, what happens to dependent services, or what the tool returns upon completion. For a tool that modifies system state, more contextual information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'virtualMachineId', so the schema already documents this parameter adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationships to other tools). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('reset hostname and PTR record') and target resource ('specified virtual machine'), with a specific outcome ('to default value'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like VPS_setHostnameV1 (which sets custom values) and VPS_createPTRRecordV1 (which creates new records). However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives for full differentiation.

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 implied usage context ('restore default hostname configuration') which suggests when to use this tool (when defaults are needed). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., for custom configurations) or direct alternatives like VPS_setHostnameV1. The context is clear but incomplete for optimal decision-making.

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