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. It mentions 'Smart identifier resolution' and the return type ('Script content'), which adds some context. However, it fails to address critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., if the script doesn't exist), authentication requirements, or rate limits, making it insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Each sentence serves a purpose, and there's no wasted text. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the smart resolution note into the main sentence for better flow.

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 complexity (simple read operation), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details like error handling or permissions. With the output schema, it doesn't need to explain returns, but overall gaps in transparency keep it from being fully adequate.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter 'script_identifier' as 'The startup script name or ID' and noting 'Smart identifier resolution.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the basic schema, clarifying that both name and UUID are acceptable. With only one parameter, this is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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 the content of a startup script.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('startup script content'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_startup_script' or 'search_startup_scripts', which might have overlapping functions, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 with 'Smart identifier resolution: use script name or UUID,' suggesting when to use this tool for retrieving content. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_startup_script' or 'list_startup_scripts,' and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving room for ambiguity.

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