VPS 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. It states 'List all Docker images' but doesn't clarify what 'all' entails (e.g., default vs. with 'all' parameter), whether it includes intermediate images, pagination behavior, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter (100% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'list' returns, default behavior vs. with 'all'), usage context, and sibling differentiation, making it inadequate for a tool that might have nuanced behavior in a Docker environment.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'all' documented as 'Show all images (including intermediate)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 'List all Docker images' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Docker images'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_image' (which likely retrieves a specific image) or 'pull_image' (which fetches from a registry), missing explicit sibling distinction that would warrant 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. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_images' over 'get_image' (for details on a specific image) or 'pull_image' (to fetch new images), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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