Vultr MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a list of startup scripts, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what format the list takes, or any pagination/limiting behavior. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second clarifies the return value. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by combining both ideas into a single more informative sentence.

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 that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are absent, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, for a list operation that likely returns potentially large datasets, the description should ideally mention pagination, filtering limitations, or format details that aren't covered by the output schema alone.

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. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly doesn't attempt to do so. The baseline for this situation is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter documentation.

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's purpose as 'List all startup scripts' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_startup_scripts' or 'get_startup_script', leaving the scope differentiation unclear. The description is adequate but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'search_startup_scripts' or 'get_startup_script'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or contextual usage scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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