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 effectively communicates that this is a mutation operation (implied by 'Stop') and specifies a critical failure condition. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, or what the response looks like (e.g., success confirmation or error details).

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: the core purpose, a critical precondition, and the usage context. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 does well by covering the purpose, precondition, and usage context. It adequately informs the agent about what the tool does and when it will fail. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the response format or error handling.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'virtualMachineId'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 ('Stop recovery mode') and target resource ('for a specified virtual machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like VPS_startRecoveryModeV1 and other VPS tools. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 the tool ('to exit system rescue mode and return VPS to normal operation') and includes a prerequisite condition ('If virtual machine is not in recovery mode, this operation will fail'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like VPS_startVirtualMachineV1 or when not to use it beyond the failure condition.

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