Code MCP Server

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. 'Manage' implies mutation capabilities (e.g., starting/stopping services), but the description doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., container creation/deletion), error handling, or output format. It lacks critical details for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose, making it structurally sound.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., detach for background operation). For a multi-action tool with significant parameter interplay, more context is needed for completeness.

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 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., action enum values, file default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents 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 'Manage Docker Compose services' states a general purpose but is vague about what 'manage' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_build or docker_run by specifying Compose services, but lacks the specificity of a clear verb+resource combination (e.g., 'execute Docker Compose commands to control multi-container applications').

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over individual Docker tools (e.g., docker_run for single containers) or other sibling tools like generate_docker_compose. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.

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