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 plans and returns a list, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, or how results are formatted (e.g., pagination). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, using a clear main sentence followed by 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be more front-loaded by integrating the parameter and return info into the main description for immediate clarity, preventing a perfect score of 5.

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 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, auth) and doesn't fully explain the return format beyond 'List of bare metal plans.' For a simple list tool, this is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 mentions 'plan_type: Optional plan type filter,' which adds some semantic context beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain what 'plan_type' values are valid (e.g., categories or examples), leaving the parameter only partially documented. With low schema coverage, the description compensates minimally, warranting a baseline score of 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 bare metal plans.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('bare metal plans'), making the action and target explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_plans' or 'search_bare_metal_plans,' which limits its score to 4 instead of 5.

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 sibling tools like 'list_plans' or 'search_bare_metal_plans,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the optional 'plan_type' filter, but this doesn't address broader context or alternatives.

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