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. It discloses that the request processes without effect if the VM is already stopped, adding useful idempotency context. However, it misses critical behavioral details like whether this is a hard stop vs. graceful shutdown, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The transparency is partial but not complete for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by idempotency details and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to scan. The structure is clear and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 basic purpose and idempotency but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error responses, or prerequisites (e.g., VM state requirements). Given the tool's potential impact, more context on safety and outcomes would be beneficial, making it minimally adequate but with gaps.

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 the single parameter 'virtualMachineId' documented as 'Virtual Machine ID' in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to find the ID. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 verb 'stop' and the resource 'virtual machine' with the specific action of powering off. It distinguishes from siblings like 'restartVirtualMachineV1' by focusing on stopping rather than restarting, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 implied usage by stating 'Use this endpoint to power off running VPS instances,' which suggests it's for running machines. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., vs. restarting or shutting down gracefully) or naming specific alternatives like 'restartVirtualMachineV1' from the sibling list. The guidance is basic and could be more comprehensive.

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