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 creating a 'new instance' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwriting existing data), permission requirements, rate limits, or what 'Information about the restoration process' entails (e.g., job ID, status, time estimates). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter tool, though the Args section could be more concise by integrating explanations into the main description rather than listing them separately.

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 complexity (database restoration with 6 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, error conditions, or output details beyond a vague 'Information about the restoration process'. For a mutation tool with significant parameters, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters in the Args section, adding basic semantics (e.g., 'source database ID', 'backup label/timestamp', 'Label for the new restored database'). However, it doesn't explain parameter relationships, formats (e.g., timestamp format for backup_label), or constraints (e.g., valid plans/regions), leaving gaps despite covering all 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 clearly states the action ('Restore a database from a backup') and the outcome ('to a new instance'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create' or 'fork_database' by focusing on restoration from backup rather than creation from scratch or replication from a live database.

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 'create' or 'fork_database'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., existing backups), exclusions, or typical scenarios for restoration, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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