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 mentions 'update administrator credentials,' implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (overwrites existing password), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a password-setting tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the core function, referencing requirements, and providing usage context. It's front-loaded with the main action. Minor improvement could be merging the last two sentences for better flow.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (permissions, destructiveness), error handling, return values, or prerequisites. The reference to another endpoint for password requirements is helpful but doesn't compensate for missing critical context.

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 (virtualMachineId and password) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as password format constraints or VM ID sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 root password') and target resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_setPanelPasswordV1 or VPS_setHostnameV1, which also modify VM credentials/settings, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 usage context by referencing password requirements from another endpoint and stating it's for 'updating administrator credentials,' which implies it's for existing VMs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like VPS_setPanelPasswordV1 or when not to use it (e.g., for initial setup vs. updates).

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