Vultr 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 the tool 'Find[s] all Object Storage instances', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if there's a limit). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 complete enough for basic use. It covers purpose, parameter, and return value. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., safety, performance) and the structure of the returned list, which could be important for an agent.

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 provides the parameter 'region' with an example ('ewr', 'lax', 'fra'), adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it doesn't specify if these are the only valid codes or where to find them, leaving some ambiguity. For a single parameter, this is good but not exhaustive.

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 with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('Object Storage instances'), and it distinguishes from siblings by specifying the filtering criterion ('in a specific region'). It's not a tautology and provides meaningful differentiation from tools like 'list' or 'find_by_name'.

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 by stating 'in a specific region', which suggests when to use this tool (for region-based filtering). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'list' for all instances or 'find_by_name' for name-based filtering). The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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