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 states this is a retrieval/read operation, which is clear, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides usage context, making it front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits and return values, which could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively in more complex scenarios.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'whoisId' documented as 'WHOIS ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as explaining what a WHOIS ID is or where to find it. Since the schema already covers the parameter adequately, 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 ('Retrieve domain list') and resource ('where provided WHOIS contact profile is used'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'domains_getWHOISProfileV1' or 'domains_getWHOISProfileListV1', which appear related to WHOIS profiles but serve different purposes.

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 second sentence provides some context ('Use this endpoint to view which domains use specific contact profiles'), implying usage when needing to find domains associated with a WHOIS profile. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'domains_getWHOISProfileV1' for profile details) or any prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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