Vultr MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Get details' (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if IDs are invalid), rate limits, or whether it returns partial data. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 purpose clearly. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured but slightly redundant (parameters are already in the schema). Every sentence adds value, though it could be more concise by integrating the parameter hints into the main description.

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 (2 required parameters, no nested objects) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses usage guidelines, behavioral context, and detailed parameter semantics. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps that could hinder effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameters ('load_balancer_id', 'forwarding_rule_id') and gives examples for load_balancer_id (e.g., 'web-lb', UUID), but doesn't explain forwarding_rule_id format or where to find these IDs. This partially compensates but leaves key details undocumented, warranting a baseline 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: 'Get details of a specific forwarding rule.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('forwarding rule'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_forwarding_rules' (which lists multiple) and 'create_forwarding_rule' (which creates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools (e.g., 'get_firewall_rule'), though the resource name makes it fairly distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a load balancer ID), compare it to 'list_forwarding_rules' for broader queries, or specify use cases like troubleshooting or configuration review. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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