hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect ('domain owner's personal information is visible in public WHOIS database'), which is crucial for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence, followed by explanatory context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension by an AI agent.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and effect. However, it lacks details on return values or potential side effects, which could be important for a tool that changes privacy settings, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Disable privacy protection') and resource ('for the domain'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'domains_enablePrivacyProtectionV1' by explicitly describing the opposite operation, ensuring the agent can differentiate between them effectively.

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 on when to use this tool: 'to make domain owner's information publicly visible' after disabling privacy protection. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as the enable counterpart, though the implication is strong given the sibling tool's name.

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