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 that improper configuration can cause domain resolution issues (a useful warning), it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to existing nameserver configurations. For a tool that modifies system settings, this represents significant gaps in transparency.

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, providing a warning, and clarifying usage context. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary repetition or fluff. The structure is logical but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool that modifies virtual machine DNS settings with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, or provide enough behavioral context for safe usage. The warning about improper configuration is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing information about the mutation's effects and response format.

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 all four parameters (ns1, ns2, ns3, virtualMachineId) with basic descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'custom DNS resolvers' which relates to the ns parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Set nameservers') and target resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'domains_updateDomainNameserversV1' which also deals with nameservers but for domains rather than VPS instances.

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 some context about when to use it ('to configure custom DNS resolvers for VPS instances') and includes a warning about improper configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling VPS tools, leaving usage decisions somewhat implied rather than clearly guided.

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