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 mentions retrieving information and viewing configuration, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'comprehensive' entails. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage hint. It's efficient with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (simple read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like response format, error handling, or security considerations, which are important for a tool without structured output or annotation support.

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 parameter 'domain' clearly documented as 'Domain name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'detailed information for specified domain', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'domains_getDomainListV1' or 'domains_getWHOISProfileV1', which might also retrieve domain information but with different scopes or details.

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 with 'Use this endpoint to view comprehensive domain configuration and status', which implies usage for viewing details but doesn't specify when to use this tool over alternatives like checking availability or getting lists. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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