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. While it mentions the tool's purpose and use cases, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a destructive operation that overwrites current VM state, what permissions are required, whether it causes downtime, what happens to current data, or what the response format 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 three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the use case, and reinforcing the endpoint's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. While efficient, the third sentence ('Use this endpoint to revert VPS instances to previous saved states') is somewhat redundant with the first sentence.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during restoration (downtime, data loss), what the response contains, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. The description covers basic purpose and use cases but lacks the operational details needed for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 the single parameter 'virtualMachineId' with its type and description. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('Restore a specified virtual machine to a previous state using a snapshot') and resource ('virtual machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like VPS_restoreBackupV1 or VPS_createSnapshotV1. It explicitly mentions 'snapshot' as the restoration source, which differentiates it from backup-based restoration tools.

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 the tool ('useful for system recovery, undoing changes, or testing'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing snapshot or compare it to VPS_restoreBackupV1, though the context is sufficiently clear for basic usage decisions.

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