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 destructive action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: it doesn't warn about irreversible deletion, specify permissions required, describe cleanup of associated resources (e.g., tasks, load balancers), or mention confirmation prompts. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. There's no redundant information, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations into the main text without the separate heading.

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), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks safety warnings, usage context, and behavioral details needed for responsible invocation, leaving gaps in 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 adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'tenant_id' is explained as 'The tenant ID containing the ECS service' (implying a container relationship), and 'name' as 'The ECS service name to delete' (clarifying it's the identifier). This goes beyond the schema's basic titles ('Tenant Id', 'Name'), providing useful semantic understanding.

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 ('an ECS service from a DuploCloud tenant'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'service_delete' or 'ecs_task_list', which would require mentioning it specifically targets ECS services rather than generic services or other ECS resources.

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., the service must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if running tasks), or refer to related tools like 'ecs_service_list' for verification or 'ecs_service_update' for modification instead.

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