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 of behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'Get[s] information' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what kind of information is returned, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what happens if the database doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with three short sections (purpose, Args, Returns) that are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second lists parameters, and the third indicates the return type. There's no unnecessary verbosity or redundancy.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about databases, this leaves too many gaps for effective 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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has descriptions in the schema. The description includes an 'Args' section that names the parameters (database_id, db_name) and a 'Returns' section, but it doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their format, whether they're mutually exclusive, or how they work together. This adds minimal value beyond what the bare schema provides, insufficient to compensate for the 0% 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 states 'Get information about a logical database' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('logical database'), establishing the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get' tools in the sibling list (like get_domain, get_user, get_plan) beyond specifying the resource type. The purpose is clear but generic without sibling differentiation.

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, when this tool is appropriate versus other database-related tools (like list_databases or create_logical_database), or any exclusions. The only contextual hint is in the parameter documentation, but this doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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