DuploCloud Docker 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 the tool deletes a database instance, implying a destructive, irreversible action, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, confirmation prompts, rate limits, deletion time, or what happens to associated data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could lead to misuse.

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 main purpose stated concisely in the first sentence. The Args section adds necessary parameter explanations without redundancy. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than as a separate block.

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 (destructive deletion with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses important contextual details like safety warnings, error conditions, or dependencies. For a deletion tool, this is a moderate gap that could impact 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 for undocumented parameters. It adds semantic context by explaining that 'tenant_id' identifies the tenant containing the database and 'name' is the database instance identifier to delete, which clarifies beyond the schema's generic titles ('Tenant Id', 'Name'). However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., ID patterns, name constraints) or examples, leaving some ambiguity for the two required 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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('RDS database instance from a DuploCloud tenant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like database_create, database_get, database_list, and database_update by specifying deletion rather than creation, retrieval, listing, or updating. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other delete tools like bucket_delete or tenant_delete, which slightly limits sibling differentiation.

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 prerequisites (e.g., database must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if in use), or comparisons to siblings like database_list (to identify databases) or database_get (to check status). Without such context, an agent might struggle to determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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