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 a read operation ('Get details'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly indicates a read action.

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 stated first ('Get details of a specific host by name') followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated. It earns its place by clarifying parameters given low schema coverage.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately, though it lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance hints. The output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, making this sufficient for basic use.

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 meaning by explaining that 'tenant_id' is 'The tenant ID containing the host' and 'name' is 'The host name to look up', which clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond their titles ('Tenant Id', 'Name'). This adequately compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't provide format examples or constraints.

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 with 'Get details of a specific host by name', which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('host'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like host_list (which lists hosts) and host_create/delete/reboot (which modify hosts), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 host_list for listing all hosts or host_create for creating a new host, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context is retrieving details for a known host, but this is basic and insufficient for explicit usage guidelines.

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