hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it describes the update process ('pulling the latest image versions and recreating containers'), data preservation ('preserves data volumes'), and application of changes ('applying changes from the compose file'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or runtime impact that would make it a 5.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states the core action, second clarifies data preservation, third provides usage guidelines. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 explaining what the update entails, data preservation, and usage scenarios. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, response format, or error conditions, which keeps it from a perfect score given the complexity of updating Docker Compose projects.

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 already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about the project being a 'Docker Compose project' which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Updates a Docker Compose project') and resource ('project'), with detailed scope ('pulling the latest image versions and recreating containers with new configurations'). It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_restartProjectV1 or VPS_createNewProjectV1 by focusing on updates rather than creation or simple restarts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to deploy application updates, apply configuration changes, or refresh container images to their latest versions.' This provides clear context for usage scenarios without needing to reference specific alternatives, as the purpose inherently differentiates it from other VPS tools.

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