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 indicates a read operation ('Get') and specifies the return content, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap, though the description does add some behavioral context about the return format.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, the second clarifies parameter input, and the third specifies return content. No redundant or verbose language is present.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return content at a high level. However, for a user retrieval tool in a system with many sibling tools, more explicit differentiation from alternatives would enhance completeness.

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 'user_id' parameter accepts either a UUID or email address, which is crucial semantic information not in the schema. With only one parameter, this clarification is highly valuable, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases or formats beyond the examples given.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific user'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_users' (which returns multiple users) and 'find_by_email' (which might search rather than retrieve detailed info). The specificity of 'detailed information including permissions and settings' further clarifies scope.

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 when detailed user info is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user' (which appears to be a sibling) or 'find_by_email'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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