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 'Quick setup' and that the password is 'auto-generated if not provided', but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites existing databases), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'Complete setup information' includes. For a complex provisioning tool with 7 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 a clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters or outcomes without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics and purpose clarity but falls short in behavioral transparency (e.g., missing permissions, side effects) and output details ('Complete setup information' is vague without an output schema). This leaves gaps for 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 fully. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 7 parameters beyond their names, including examples (e.g., 'ewr', '13-17'), defaults ('auto-generated if not provided'), and purposes ('Label for the database'). This adds significant value over the bare 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 with specific verbs ('Quick setup') and resources ('PostgreSQL database with application user and database'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'setup_mysql_database' or general creation tools like 'create'. It explicitly mentions what gets created (database, user, password, database name), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool—for setting up a PostgreSQL database with an application user and database. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'setup_mysql_database' or 'create_logical_database' from the sibling list), which prevents a perfect score.

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