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' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the plan_id is invalid. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic operation.

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 with a clear structure: purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Plan details') and could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 has 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which should cover return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does and the parameter, but lacks context on usage, behavior, or error handling. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 description adds minimal semantics: it names the parameter 'plan_id' and states it's for identifying the plan, but the input schema has 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions). With 1 parameter and low schema coverage, the description provides basic meaning but doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it compensates slightly for the schema gap.

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' and resource 'details of a specific plan', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_plans' (which likely lists multiple plans) by specifying retrieval of a single plan's details. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'details' include or differentiate from tools like 'get_plan_by_type_and_spec'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when you need details of a specific plan identified by ID, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with siblings like 'get_plan_by_type_and_spec' or 'list_plans'. This leaves the agent to infer context.

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