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 does describe the core behavior ('fully stopping and starting it') and handles the stopped VM case, but doesn't mention important aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to running processes, potential downtime, error conditions, or rate limits. It adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the core action, edge case handling, and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool with clear purpose.

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 adequate basic information about what the tool does but lacks important context. It doesn't describe what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or prerequisites. The description is complete enough to understand the basic operation but insufficient for safe, informed use.

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% with the single parameter 'virtualMachineId' documented as 'Virtual Machine ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to find this ID. With high schema coverage, the 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 specific action ('restart') on a specific resource ('virtual machine'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for 'VPS instances' rather than other VPS resources like projects or firewalls. It also clarifies the behavior ('fully stopping and starting it') and handles edge cases ('If the virtual machine was stopped, it will be started').

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 reboot VPS instances'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies this is for restarting VPS virtual machines, but doesn't contrast with other VPS restart tools like 'VPS_restartProjectV1' or start/stop tools.

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