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 describes a read-only list operation, which implies safety, but fails to mention any constraints like pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what the output includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral details, it doesn't fully cover aspects like error handling or usage context, leaving room for improvement.

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 adds a brief explanation for the single parameter ('tenant_id: The tenant ID to list task definitions for'), which provides meaning beyond the schema's basic type information. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it could be more detailed (e.g., format or source of the ID).

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 ('List all') and resource ('ECS task definition families in a DuploCloud tenant'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ecs_task_list' or 'ecs_service_list', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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, such as 'ecs_task_list' or 'ecs_service_list', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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