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. It discloses the partial update behavior ('Provide only the fields to change'), which is valuable. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention that this is a mutation/write operation (implied but not stated), doesn't specify permissions needed, doesn't describe error conditions, and doesn't explain what happens to unchanged fields. 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place by adding value. Minor improvement could be integrating the optional note into the Args list more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient.

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 (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context like permissions, side effects, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps that could hinder safe usage.

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 semantics for all 4 parameters: tenant_id ('The tenant ID containing the service'), name ('The service name to update'), image ('New Docker image'), and replicas ('New replica count'). It also clarifies that image and replicas are optional. This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain parameter formats 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 verb 'Update' and resource 'existing service', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like service_create, service_delete, and service_restart by focusing on partial field updates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from service_get or service_list, which are read operations.

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 implies usage through 'Provide only the fields to change', suggesting a partial update scenario. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like service_create (for new services) or service_restart (for restarting without config changes), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Guidelines are present but not comprehensive.

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