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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if results are paginated, what format the returned list uses, or any rate limits. The mention of 'Returns: List of PXE startup scripts' is minimal and doesn't provide meaningful behavioral context.

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 extremely brief (two short sentences) but under-specified rather than efficiently concise. While there's no wasted text, the second sentence 'Returns: List of PXE startup scripts' adds minimal value beyond what's implied by 'List' in the first sentence. The structure is simple but lacks the informative density needed for a helpful tool description.

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?

For a simple listing tool with 0 parameters and an output schema (which exists according to context signals), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling listing tools, it should provide more context about what PXE scripts are and how this listing differs from other script-related tools. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should still address the tool's specific domain context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters with complete schema coverage is 4, as there are no parameters whose semantics need explanation beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool 'List PXE startup scripts' which clearly indicates a listing operation on a specific resource type (PXE startup scripts). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_startup_scripts' or 'list_boot_scripts' - the description doesn't clarify what makes PXE scripts different from other script types or why this specific listing tool exists.

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. With sibling tools like 'list_startup_scripts', 'search_startup_scripts', and 'get_startup_script', there's no indication of when this PXE-specific listing is appropriate versus more general listing/search tools. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned.

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