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. It mentions 'resizing' which implies a mutation that could be disruptive (e.g., downtime, cost changes), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens if size is null. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the Args section is structured for readability. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the example into the main sentence. Every sentence adds value.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error conditions) and doesn't leverage the output schema's existence to omit return value explanations. For a mutation tool, more context on risks or outcomes would improve 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief explanation for each parameter (tenant_id, name, size) and an example for size ('e.g. db.t3.small'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't fully cover semantics like format constraints for tenant_id or name, or the implications of size being nullable (default null). The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('RDS database instance'), and specifies the current capability ('Currently supports resizing'). It distinguishes from siblings like database_create, database_delete, and database_get by focusing on modification rather than creation, deletion, or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from database_list or other update tools like bucket_update or service_update beyond the resource type.

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 resize while in certain states), or comparisons to siblings like database_get (for checking current size) or database_create (for initial setup). Usage is implied only by the action and resource.

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