hostinger-api-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions the behavioral effect ('personal information is hidden from public WHOIS database') but lacks critical details: whether this is a reversible operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential costs or rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, effect explanation, and usage context. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the second sentence could be integrated more tightly with the first for better flow.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains what the tool does but lacks information on behavioral implications (e.g., reversibility, side effects), error conditions, or response format. Given the complexity of domain management operations, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 the schema provides (e.g., format examples, validation rules). 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 tool's purpose: 'Enable privacy protection for the domain' with the specific effect of hiding personal information from WHOIS. It distinguishes from sibling 'domains_disablePrivacyProtectionV1' by indicating this is the enable action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other domain management tools like 'domains_enableDomainLockV1' beyond the privacy focus.

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 by stating 'Use this endpoint to protect domain owner's personal information from public view,' which suggests when privacy protection is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like WHOIS profile management tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., domain must be active).

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