hostinger-api-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it starts 'all services... currently stopped' and brings up containers 'in the correct dependency order as defined in the compose file.' However, it lacks details on permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., resource usage), error conditions, or what happens if the project is already running. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. The subsequent sentences add useful context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized at three sentences, each earning its place by clarifying scope, behavior, and usage scenarios.

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 tool's moderate complexity (starting Docker services), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, how it behaves, and when to use it. However, it lacks details on output (e.g., success/failure indicators) and error handling, which are important for a mutation tool without structured output documentation.

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%, with both parameters ('projectName' and 'virtualMachineId') fully described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not need to.

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 ('Starts all services in a Docker Compose project that are currently stopped'), identifies the resource ('Docker Compose project'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'VPS_restartProjectV1' (which implies restarting running services) and 'VPS_stopProjectV1' (the opposite action). The verb 'starts' is precise and unambiguous.

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 this tool ('to resume a project that was previously stopped or to start services after a system reboot'), which helps differentiate it from other start/restart operations. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it (e.g., if services are already running) or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the context implies distinction from 'restart' tools.

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