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 warns that 'improper nameserver configuration can lead to the domain being unresolvable or unavailable,' which hints at potential destructive effects, but doesn't specify required permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits like whether changes are reversible or immediate. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise with three sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second warns of risks, and the third provides usage context. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity of a domain mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on required permissions, error handling, response format, or how to verify changes. The warning about risks is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding, especially compared to sibling tools that may overlap in functionality.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (domain, ns1, ns2, ns3, ns4) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 ('Set') and resource ('nameservers for a specified domain'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'VPS_setNameserversV1' or 'DNS_updateDNSRecordsV1', which might handle similar DNS-related operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 some usage context by stating 'Use this endpoint to configure custom DNS hosting for domains,' which implies when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or clear alternatives among the many DNS and domain-related sibling tools, 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.