Vultr MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns ('List of VC2 plans') without mentioning any behavioral traits - no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, freshness of data, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 (two short sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence states the purpose, but the second sentence ('Returns: List of VC2 plans') is redundant - it essentially repeats the first sentence in different words. This wastes space that could have been used for usage guidance or behavioral context.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description meets minimum requirements. However, with no annotations and multiple similar sibling tools ('list_plans', 'list_vhf_plans', etc.), the description should do more to clarify the specific context of VC2 plans and when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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 (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't create confusion about parameters.

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 'List VC2 (Virtual Cloud Compute) plans' which clearly indicates the verb (list) and resource (VC2 plans). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_plans', 'list_vhf_plans', or 'list_voc_plans' - the agent must infer VC2 is a specific type of plan. The description is accurate but lacks specificity about what distinguishes VC2 plans from other plan types.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool should be used (e.g., to see available VC2 configurations before creating instances) or when other tools might be more appropriate (like 'compare_plans' or 'search_plans_by_specs'). The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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