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. It states the tool returns a 'List of plans matching the criteria,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the search is case-sensitive or supports partial matches. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, and the subsequent lines clarify inputs and outputs without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with four parameters.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, sorting, error handling) and doesn't fully compensate for the missing output schema by describing the structure of returned plans. It's minimally viable but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing all four parameters with clear semantics: 'min_vcpus: Minimum number of vCPUs', 'min_ram: Minimum RAM in GB', etc. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't explain that parameters are optional (default: null) or provide examples, preventing a perfect score.

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: 'Search bare metal plans by specifications.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('bare metal plans'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_bare_metal_plans' or 'compare_plans', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_bare_metal_plans' or 'search_plans_by_specs' from the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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