hostinger-api-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies existing scripts, implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits such as permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on running systems), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and usage. There's no wasted text or redundancy. However, the second sentence ('Use this endpoint to modify existing automation scripts') is somewhat tautological with the first, slightly reducing efficiency, but overall it remains appropriately sized for the context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, error handling), does not explain return values or side effects, and provides minimal usage guidance. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is insufficient.

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 each parameter (postInstallScriptId, name, content) clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying modification of 'existing automation scripts,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra value like format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('update') and resource ('a specific post-install script'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_createPostInstallScriptV1 and VPS_deletePostInstallScriptV1 by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like VPS_updateFirewallRuleV1 or VPS_updateProjectV1 beyond the resource type.

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 minimal guidance with 'Use this endpoint to modify existing automation scripts,' which implies usage for modifications but lacks explicit when-to-use criteria. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing script ID), alternatives (e.g., when to use create vs. update), or exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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