Vultr MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool deletes a startup script, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, or error handling. The mention of 'Success message' hints at output but lacks detail on failure cases or side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'Smart identifier resolution' note could be more integrated. Overall, it's appropriately sized and well-organized for quick understanding.

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 a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and parameter semantics but lacks crucial context like safety warnings, auth needs, or error behaviors. The output schema handles return values, but more behavioral disclosure is needed for a mutation tool.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'script_identifier' parameter as accepting 'script name or UUID' and providing 'Smart identifier resolution'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, clarifying input format and resolution behavior, though it doesn't detail constraints like length or patterns.

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 specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a startup script'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_startup_script' and 'update_startup_script'. It provides precise verb+resource pairing with no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage through the 'Smart identifier resolution' note, suggesting when to use name vs. UUID, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'delete' (general deletion) or prerequisites. It provides some context but no clear exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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