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. While it mentions the return value ('List of regions with DDoS protection capability'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information more explicitly, but overall it's efficient and well-sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 this is a simple read operation with 0 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations provided and many similar sibling tools, the description should do more to clarify when this specific tool should be used versus alternatives. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it lacks context about the tool's place in the broader tool ecosystem.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information since none exist, which is correct for this case. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 all regions that support DDoS protection.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('regions that support DDoS protection'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_regions' or 'list_by_region', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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 many sibling tools like 'list_regions', 'list_by_region', and 'find_regions_with_plan', there's no indication of when this DDoS-specific listing is appropriate versus general region listing tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or alternatives.

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