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. It explains the behavioral outcome ('Virtual machine will boot recovery disk image and original disk image will be mounted in `/mnt` directory') and the purpose of recovery mode. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this operation is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, potential downtime implications, or rate limits.

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 appropriately sized with four sentences that each add value. It starts with the core purpose, explains recovery mode, describes the technical outcome, and provides usage context without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 adequate context about what the tool does and why, but lacks important details about behavioral implications, return values, error conditions, and operational constraints that would be needed for comprehensive understanding.

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, maintaining the baseline score of 3 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 specific action ('Initiate recovery mode') and target resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), with additional context about what recovery mode enables. It distinguishes from sibling tools like VPS_stopRecoveryModeV1 by focusing on initiation rather than termination of recovery mode.

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 about when to use this tool ('to enable system rescue operations on VPS instances' and 'when troubleshooting issues that prevent normal booting'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling VPS tools.

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