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 listing operation but doesn't mention whether it's paginated, what format the output takes, whether it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the Args section cleanly documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks behavioral context about permissions, pagination, or error conditions that would be helpful for a listing 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly documenting the single parameter 'tenant_id' and its purpose ('The tenant ID to list services for'). This adds essential meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't specify format or constraints for the tenant_id value.

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 ('services in a DuploCloud tenant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'service_get' or 'ecs_service_list', which would require more specific scope information to earn 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 like 'service_get' (for single service) or 'ecs_service_list' (for ECS-specific services). It mentions the required tenant_id parameter but offers no context about prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or comparison with other listing tools.

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