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 this is a creation operation but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether this is an asynchronous operation, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description only covers basic parameter semantics without behavioral context.

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 in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are clear and efficient. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value given the 0% schema coverage. No redundant or wasted text is present.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers all parameters well but lacks behavioral context about permissions, async nature, or error handling. For a VM creation tool, more operational context would be helpful, though the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively by explaining all 4 parameters. It clarifies tenant_id context, friendly_name purpose, capacity as instance type, and agent_platform with specific enum values (0=Linux Docker, 7=EKS Linux) and default. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Create a new host (VM)') and resource ('in a DuploCloud tenant'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like host_get, host_list, host_delete, and host_reboot. It explicitly identifies the resource type as a VM/host rather than other resources like buckets, databases, or services.

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., needing an existing tenant), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar creation tools like service_create or tenant_create. The only implied context is that a tenant must exist, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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