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. It mentions 'Returns: List of VHF plans' which provides basic output information, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the returned list takes. For a tool 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 brief but inefficiently structured. The first sentence 'List VHF (High Frequency) plans.' is clear, but the second sentence 'Returns: List of VHF plans' is redundant - it essentially repeats the purpose without adding value. The description could be more concise by combining these ideas or eliminating the redundant second 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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain parameters or return values. However, for a list operation with no annotations, it should provide more context about the listing behavior (pagination, filtering, sorting) and how it differs from similar sibling tools. The current description is minimally adequate but leaves important contextual gaps.

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 already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what's already structured.

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 VHF (High Frequency) plans' which provides a clear verb ('List') and resource ('VHF plans'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_vc2_plans' or 'list_voc_plans' that appear to list similar plan types. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes VHF 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. With sibling tools like 'list_plans', 'list_vc2_plans', and 'list_voc_plans' available, the description offers no context about when VHF plans specifically should be listed versus other plan types or general plan listings.

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