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 search returns a 'List of matching startup scripts', it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, if there's pagination, what happens with empty queries, or performance characteristics. The description provides basic functional information but lacks operational context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. The three sentences each serve a distinct purpose without redundancy. However, the formatting with separate sections could be slightly more integrated for optimal front-loading of information.

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 there's an output schema (which presumably documents the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, for a search tool with no annotations and multiple sibling alternatives, the description should provide more context about when to use it and behavioral characteristics. It's minimally adequate but lacks guidance that would help an agent choose between this and similar tools.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description explains that 'query' is a 'Search term to look for in script names or content', which provides some context. However, it doesn't specify search syntax, case sensitivity, or matching behavior. The baseline is appropriate given the simple single-parameter schema.

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 startup scripts by name or content.' This specifies the verb (search), resource (startup scripts), and scope (by name or content). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_startup_scripts' or 'get_startup_script', which would require a 5.

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. There are multiple sibling tools that interact with startup scripts (create_startup_script, delete_startup_script, list_startup_scripts, get_startup_script, update_startup_script), but the description doesn't indicate when search is preferred over list or get operations.

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