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 creates/sets up configurations, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., confirmation details). 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides basic usage context. Both sentences earn their place, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for key points) but remains efficient.

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 complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output expectations. It's complete enough to understand what the tool does at a high level but insufficient for robust agent use without additional context.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (domain, redirect_type, redirect_url). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints like URL validation). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the 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 tool's purpose: 'Create domain forwarding configuration' and 'set up domain redirects to other URLs.' This specifies the verb (create/set up) and resource (domain forwarding configuration/redirects). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'domains_deleteDomainForwardingV1' or 'domains_getDomainForwardingV1' beyond the obvious create vs. delete/get distinction.

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: 'Use this endpoint to set up domain redirects to other URLs.' It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs. update forwarding, or prerequisites like domain ownership), nor does it mention exclusions or related tools. The context is implied but lacks explicit usage instructions.

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