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. It discloses key behavioral traits: the search is a partial match and case-insensitive, and it returns a list. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with no matches—leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear Arg and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool, 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation, parameter intent, and return type. However, for a search tool, it lacks details on result format (e.g., fields in subaccounts), pagination, error handling, and performance considerations, leaving room for improvement.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: the 'name' parameter is for searching with partial matching and case-insensitivity. This goes beyond the schema's basic type information. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., length, special characters) or examples, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find subaccounts by name (partial match).' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('subaccounts'), and search criteria ('by name'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_by_email' or 'find_by_region', which would be needed for 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?

The description implies usage context through 'partial match' and 'case-insensitive' qualifiers, suggesting this is for fuzzy name searches. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'find_by_email' or 'list' tools, nor does it 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.