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. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 clearly states the purpose, and the 'Args' section efficiently documents the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and the parameter, but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, so the description doesn't need to cover that, but it should still address when to use this tool.

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 adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that the 'name' parameter is used 'to look up' a tenant, which clarifies its purpose as an identifier. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this minimal addition is sufficient to compensate, earning a baseline 4 for such a simple case.

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: 'Get details of a specific DuploCloud tenant by name.' This is a specific verb ('Get details') + resource ('DuploCloud tenant') combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tenant_list' or 'tenant_get' vs 'tenant_create/delete', though the distinction is implied by the verb 'Get'.

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 'tenant_list' for listing all tenants or 'tenant_create/delete' for other operations. The only context is the parameter requirement, which doesn't help with tool selection.

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