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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, adds a helpful note on identifier resolution, and briefly outlines args and returns. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the identifier note into the first sentence, but overall it's efficient.

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 somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the parameter semantics and return type ('CDN zone details'), but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavior, error handling, or the structure of returned details. This makes it adequate but not fully comprehensive for agent use.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds semantic value by explaining that 'zone_identifier' can be 'origin domain, CDN domain, or UUID,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema. However, it doesn't provide examples, format details, or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 details of a specific CDN zone.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('CDN zone'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cdn_zone_summary' or 'list_cdn_zones', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 origin domain, CDN domain, or UUID,' which suggests when to use this tool for retrieving details of a specific zone. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_cdn_zone_summary' or 'list_cdn_zones,' and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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