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 adds some behavioral context: 'smart identifier resolution' indicates flexibility in input (name or UUID), which is useful beyond the basic schema. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like error handling, permissions required, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies safety). The description compensates partially but leaves gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 core purpose, followed by a brief note on identifier resolution and a clear breakdown of args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 (one parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, and hints at behavior. However, it could improve by explicitly stating it's a read-only operation or mentioning any limitations, but the output schema reduces the need for extensive return value explanation.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'script_identifier' accepts 'script name or UUID' and clarifies it's for 'smart identifier resolution', providing context not in the schema. With only one parameter, this effectively documents its semantics, compensating well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 startup script.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('startup script'), making it distinct from sibling tools like 'list_startup_scripts' or 'create_startup_script'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_startup_script_content', which might retrieve script content rather than metadata, leaving some ambiguity.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'specific startup script' and 'smart identifier resolution', suggesting it's for retrieving details of a known script rather than listing all scripts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_startup_scripts' or 'search_startup_scripts', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, relying on implied context.

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