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 indicates this is a mutation operation ('Disable') and mentions the purpose (preparing for transfer), but doesn't disclose behavioral details like required permissions, whether the change is reversible, potential side effects, or response format. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the prerequisite context, and reinforcing the use case. There's no wasted language or redundancy, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly explaining the purpose, usage context, and relationship to domain transfers. However, it lacks details about the mutation's effects, permissions, or what happens after disabling the lock, leaving some gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 one parameter ('domain') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 ('Disable domain lock') and resource ('for the domain'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'domains_enableDomainLockV1' (which does the opposite) and other domain management tools. It precisely defines the tool's function without being tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Domain lock needs to be disabled before transferring the domain to another registrar') and provides a clear alternative context ('Use this endpoint to prepare domains for transfer to other registrars'). This gives the agent direct guidance on the tool's intended use case.

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