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 this is an update operation but doesn't mention critical details like required permissions, whether it's destructive (e.g., causes service downtime), rate limits, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 the parameter descriptions could be more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.

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 of a cloud service), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description doesn't reference it or explain what to expect from the update operation.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly describes all three parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, the descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'The tenant ID containing the ECS service' for tenant_id) and don't provide format examples or constraints. This partially compensates for the schema gap but isn't comprehensive.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update the image of an ECS service's task definition.' This specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('ECS service's task definition'), and target field ('image'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'service_update' or 'ecs_service_delete', which would require a 5.

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., existing ECS service), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new services), or comparisons to siblings like 'ecs_service_list' or 'service_update'. Without this context, the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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