Vultr MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Smart identifier resolution,' which adds context on how the server is identified, but fails to describe other critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the returned 'Bandwidth usage information.' This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise, with no wasted words. It starts with the core purpose, adds a key usage note, and clearly lists args and returns in a formatted manner. Every sentence serves a specific purpose, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides basic context but is incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but misses details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance) and the structure of the return value. For a tool with no structured support, more comprehensive information would be needed for full 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'server_identifier' parameter: 'The bare metal server label, hostname, or ID.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type definition, clarifying what the parameter accepts. However, it does not detail constraints or examples, slightly limiting its effectiveness.

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: 'Get bandwidth usage for a bare metal server.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('bandwidth usage for a bare metal server'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bandwidth' or 'get_usage', which might have overlapping or similar functions, preventing 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 provides some implied usage guidance by mentioning 'Smart identifier resolution: use server label, hostname, or UUID,' which suggests when to use this tool for identifying servers. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'get_bandwidth' or 'get_usage') or any prerequisites, making the guidance incomplete.

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