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 states this is a retrieval/view operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the WHOIS ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or response format. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a bare minimum.

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' of type integer. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to find the WHOIS ID or its format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('WHOIS contact profile'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'domains_createWHOISProfileV1' and 'domains_deleteWHOISProfileV1' by specifying retrieval rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'domains_getWHOISProfileListV1' or 'domains_getWHOISProfileUsageV1', which are also retrieval operations.

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 ('to view domain registration contact information'), implying usage when contact information is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'domains_getWHOISProfileListV1' or 'domains_getWHOISProfileUsageV1', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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