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 clarifies that the request processes without effect if Monarx is not installed, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., security implications), or error handling, leaving gaps 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 main purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral context and usage guidance. It is efficient with three sentences, though the last sentence slightly repeats the purpose without adding new value, preventing a perfect score.

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 some behavioral context (idempotent behavior). However, it lacks details on return values, error conditions, or security implications, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'virtualMachineId' clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Uninstall') and resource ('Monarx malware scanner on a specified virtual machine'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'VPS_installMonarxV1' for installation. It specifies the exact malware scanner being removed, making the purpose 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 the tool ('to remove malware scanner from VPS instances') and mentions that it processes requests even if Monarx is not installed, which helps avoid confusion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, such as other security tools or uninstallation methods.

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