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 discloses that the tool retrieves catalog items and explains price formatting (cents as integers), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving gaps for a read operation with no annotation support.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a specific detail on price formatting, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's moderate complexity (read-only with 2 optional parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, price format, and usage context but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints like authentication needs. This leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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 ('category' with enum values and 'name' with wildcard usage). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how filters combine or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve catalog items available for order.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('catalog items'), and mentions viewing 'available services and pricing.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'billing_getSubscriptionListV1' or 'domains_getDomainListV1,' which might also list items but in different contexts.

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 usage: 'Use this endpoint to view available services and pricing before placing orders.' This indicates when to use it (pre-order research) and implies it's for informational purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as for post-order actions.

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