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. It mentions the outcome ('stop any further billing') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether cancellation is immediate or at the end of the billing cycle, if it's reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to associated services. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary details or redundancy.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like cancellation policies, return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. For a tool that permanently alters billing state, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 'subscriptionId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to find the ID. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Cancel') and resource ('subscription'), and explains the outcome ('stop any further billing'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like billing_getSubscriptionListV1, but the action is distinct enough to be understood.

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 some usage context ('when users want to terminate active services'), which implies this is for active subscriptions. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it (e.g., for pending or expired subscriptions) or mention alternatives like billing_getSubscriptionListV1 for checking status first.

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