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 mentions the tool sets up VMs with 'initial' state, implying a write/mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it overwrites existing settings), rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, leaving critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines, but this is minor.

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 the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error handling), usage context (e.g., prerequisites, alternatives), and output information. While the schema covers parameters, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output schema, making it insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying configuration of 'initial' state, which is already covered by the schema's parameter descriptions. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra value.

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 tool's purpose: 'Setup newly purchased virtual machine with `initial` state' and 'configure and initialize purchased VPS instances.' It uses specific verbs ('setup,' 'configure,' 'initialize') and identifies the resource ('virtual machine,' 'VPS instances'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like VPS_purchaseNewVirtualMachineV1 or VPS_recreateVirtualMachineV1, which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to configure and initialize purchased VPS instances.' It implies usage for newly purchased VMs but doesn't specify when NOT to use it (e.g., for existing VMs) or mention alternatives like VPS_recreateVirtualMachineV1 for reconfiguration. No explicit prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving gaps in guidance.

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