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 adds important context about the 'no effect' scenario for non-panel OS VMs and references external password requirements, which helps anticipate behavior. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are immediate or require reboot, what happens on failure, or if there are rate limits. The description provides 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: purpose statement, behavioral caveat, and usage context. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the 'no effect' caveat to the end, but overall it's appropriately concise for the complexity.

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 basic purpose and some behavioral context but has significant gaps. It doesn't explain what 'panel' means operationally, what authentication is required, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The reference to another endpoint helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing output information and permission requirements.

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 both parameters adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (virtualMachineId and password). It references password requirements from another endpoint but doesn't explain them here. Baseline 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 action ('Set panel password') and target resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_setRootPasswordV1 by specifying 'panel password' rather than root access. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other configuration tools like VPS_setHostnameV1 beyond the password focus.

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 contextual guidance: it mentions that the request will be processed without effect if the VM doesn't use panel OS, and references password requirements from another endpoint. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use criteria, doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VM must be running), and doesn't compare with alternatives like VPS_setRootPasswordV1 for different access levels.

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