DuploCloud Docker MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new DuploCloud tenant' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient with no wasted words. The Args section is well-formatted but could be more integrated with the main description for better flow.

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 creation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what parameters mean at a basic level, but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and detailed parameter semantics that would be helpful for proper tool invocation.

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 provides basic parameter explanations ('Name for the new tenant', 'The infrastructure plan ID to associate with'), which adds some meaning beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't elaborate on format constraints, valid plan_id values, or character limits for account_name. With two parameters and low schema coverage, the description provides minimal but adequate compensation.

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 ('Create') and resource ('DuploCloud tenant'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like tenant_delete, tenant_get, and tenant_list by specifying creation rather than deletion, retrieval, or listing operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like bucket_create or database_create beyond the resource type.

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, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like tenant_list (for checking existing tenants) or tenant_delete (for removal). The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone without explicit context.

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