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. While it mentions 'triggering a rolling redeployment' (which implies some availability considerations), it doesn't address critical aspects like: whether this requires elevated permissions, potential downtime or service disruption, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens if the service doesn't exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured with the core purpose stated first, followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place - the first establishes the action and behavioral nuance (rolling redeployment), the second documents parameters. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with critical behavioral information.

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, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks important context about permissions, side effects, error conditions, and differentiation from sibling tools that would be needed for safe and appropriate 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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents both parameters (tenant_id and name) with brief explanations, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. However, the explanations are minimal ('The tenant ID containing the service', 'The service name to restart') and don't provide format examples, constraints, or validation rules that would be helpful for correct invocation.

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 ('Restart a service') and specifies it triggers 'a rolling redeployment', which adds important context about the restart mechanism. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'host_reboot' or 'service_update', which could involve similar operations on related 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. With sibling tools like 'service_update' (which might include restart functionality) and 'host_reboot' (which operates at a different resource level), there's no indication of when this specific restart operation is appropriate versus other maintenance or update operations.

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