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 mentions partial matching for the 'name' parameter, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotations, 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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It avoids unnecessary details, though the formatting could be more integrated (e.g., as a single paragraph) for better flow.

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 an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more context on usage scenarios or limitations to be fully adequate for a search operation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds crucial semantics by specifying that the 'name' parameter uses partial matching. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, though it doesn't cover other potential aspects like case sensitivity or format.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('operating systems by name'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_os_by_name' or 'list_operating_systems', which appear to serve similar purposes, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. With sibling tools like 'get_os_by_name' and 'list_operating_systems', there's no indication of when this search tool is preferred, such as for partial matches or broader queries, leaving usage ambiguous.

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