Vultr 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 the tool deletes a DNS record, implying a destructive operation, but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent usage.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It's concise with no wasted words, though the lack of richer context prevents a perfect score.

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 destructive nature of the tool, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses important context like safety warnings, dependencies on other tools, or error handling, which is crucial for a deletion operation.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'domain' as 'The domain name' and 'record_id' as 'The record ID to delete', which clarifies their roles. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., domain syntax, ID sources), keeping the score at baseline for partial compensation.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a DNS record'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_domain' or 'delete_record' (if multiple delete tools exist), which prevents a perfect 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_record' for modifications or 'delete_domain' for broader deletions). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing the record ID from 'list_records' or 'get_record'.

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