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. 'Terminate' implies a destructive, irreversible action, but the description doesn't specify consequences (e.g., data loss, downtime), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of critical safety and operational details 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 brief Args section that efficiently lists parameters. There's no redundant information, and every sentence adds value. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter explanations into the main flow rather than a separate block.

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 operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical behavioral details like safety warnings or usage context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but for a deletion tool, more guidance is needed to be fully adequate.

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 by explaining that tenant_id identifies 'The tenant ID containing the host' and name is 'The host name to delete,' clarifying the purpose and relationship of each parameter beyond their basic types. This adequately covers both parameters, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., string patterns).

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 ('Terminate') and resource ('a host in a DuploCloud tenant'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like host_create, host_get, host_list, and host_reboot by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with bucket_delete or service_delete, which are similar destructive operations on different resources, leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 host must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for stopping vs. deleting), or related tools like host_reboot for non-destructive actions. Without such context, an agent might misuse it in scenarios where less destructive options are available.

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