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 that the tool 'apply updated firewall rules to VPS instances,' implying a write operation, but fails to specify critical details such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., downtime), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 well-structured, with three sentences that efficiently convey the purpose, context, and action. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded. Minor improvements could include bullet points for clarity, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 of a synchronization tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), output format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. While it covers the basic action and context, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use the tool confidently in varied scenarios.

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 (firewallId and virtualMachineId) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or interdependencies. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('sync a firewall') and target ('for a specified virtual machine'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_activateFirewallV1 or VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1 by focusing on synchronization rather than activation or rule modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlap with other firewall management tools in the sibling list.

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 context by explaining when firewall sync might be needed ('if the firewall has new rules added, removed or updated'), which helps identify appropriate scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., VPS_activateFirewallV1 or VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1) or any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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