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 states it 'lists' tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'running' means (e.g., active vs. all tasks). 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 core purpose stated first in a single sentence, followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the 'Args' section 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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more completeness is needed for safe 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 explains both parameters ('tenant_id' and 'service_name') with brief semantics, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could provide more detail (e.g., format examples).

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 ('List') and resource ('running ECS tasks for a specific service'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ecs_service_list' or 'ecs_task_def_list', which list different 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 sibling tools like 'ecs_service_list' (for listing services) or 'ecs_task_run' (for running tasks), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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