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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it preserves data volumes and network configurations while refreshing containers, operates in dependency order, and is used for configuration changes or service recovery. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like temporary service downtime or error handling behavior.

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 perfectly structured with three focused sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second explains what gets preserved, and the third provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, when to use it, and behavioral characteristics. However, it doesn't mention what happens if the restart fails, what the expected response format is, or any authentication/permission requirements. Given the complexity of restarting Docker Compose projects, some additional context would be helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how projectName relates to Docker Compose or what virtualMachineId represents in context. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the 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 specific action ('restarts all services in a Docker Compose project'), the mechanism ('by stopping and starting containers in the correct dependency order'), and the resource involved. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like VPS_startProjectV1 and VPS_stopProjectV1 by specifying it's a restart operation that preserves data volumes and network configurations.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to apply configuration changes or recover from service failures.' This provides clear context for when this restart operation is appropriate versus alternatives like starting or stopping projects. The sibling tools list shows related start/stop operations, making this guidance valuable.

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