hostinger-api-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool deletes data, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether the deletion is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., impact on domain functionality), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 state the purpose and usage without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and efficiently.

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 as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, reversibility), expected outcomes, or error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 the 'domain' parameter clearly documented as 'Domain name'. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 action ('Delete domain forwarding data') and resource ('domains'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'domains_createDomainForwardingV1' by specifying deletion rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools (e.g., 'domains_deleteWHOISProfileV1'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage context ('Use this endpoint to remove redirect configuration from domains'), suggesting it's for deleting forwarding settings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of prerequisites like needing existing forwarding data) or clear exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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