DuploCloud Docker MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a database but doesn't mention whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions are required, potential costs, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a creation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the complexity of database creation. No wasted text, but room for more context in the opening statement.

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 (database creation with 6 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and error handling. For a creation tool with significant implications, more completeness is needed despite the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 6 parameters in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies what each parameter represents (e.g., 'tenant_id: The tenant ID to create the database in'), notes defaults ('Defaults to master'), and indicates requirements ('Required for most engines'). However, it doesn't provide format examples or constraints beyond basic explanations.

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 specific action ('Create a new RDS database instance') and resource ('in a DuploCloud tenant'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like database_delete, database_get, database_list, and database_update. It precisely identifies what the tool does beyond just restating the name.

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 like database_update or other creation tools (e.g., bucket_create, host_create). It lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, offering only basic parameter explanations without usage context.

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