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 states the tool lists backups, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the 'Returns' section could be more detailed, slightly affecting 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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output specifics, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'database_id' parameter as 'The database ID or label,' adding semantic meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't elaborate on format, examples, or constraints, and with only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the minimal explanation reduces it to 3.

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: 'List available backups for a managed database.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('backups for a managed database'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'restore_from_backup' or other list operations, which prevents 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a specific database state or permissions, or contrast it with other backup-related tools like 'restore_from_backup' or general list tools. This leaves the agent without contextual usage cues.

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