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 full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include (e.g., status, configuration). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear Args section that efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage (compensated by the description), and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and parameters well, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or performance, which would be beneficial given the absence of annotations.

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. It adds meaningful context by explaining that 'tenant_id' identifies the tenant containing the database and 'name' is the database instance identifier, which clarifies beyond the schema's bare titles ('Tenant Id', 'Name'). This adequately covers both parameters, though it doesn't specify formats or constraints.

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 ('Get details') and resource ('specific RDS database instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like database_list (which lists multiple instances) and database_create/delete/update (which modify rather than retrieve). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with database_get's absence from siblings, though the naming pattern implies it's the counterpart to other *_get tools.

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 implies usage when details of a specific database are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like database_list or when not to use it (e.g., if only basic info is needed). It mentions the required parameters, which hints at prerequisites, but lacks clear context about alternatives or exclusions.

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