Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dokploy MCP Server

Dokploy MCP Server

by bravos2k5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

domain-one

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a domain's details by its ID. This tool provides domain information from your Dokploy server.

Instructions

GET /domain.one

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domainId": "<domainId>"
    },
    "name": "domain-one"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds no further behavioral context (e.g., permissions, return structure). Acceptable but not helpful beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely short (one line), but under-specification undermines conciseness. It is not 'appropriately sized' because it lacks necessary detail for a useful tool definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what it returns and when to use it. It fails to do so, leaving agents to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented 'domainId' parameter. It provides no explanation (e.g., 'the unique identifier of the domain'). Completely inadequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description 'GET /domain.one' only gives HTTP method and endpoint, not what it does. It does not explicitly state that it retrieves a single domain by ID, though the name hints at it. Vague and insufficiently informative for selecting the tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like domain-byApplicationId or domain-byComposeId. Does not clarify context (e.g., 'use when you have a domain ID').

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools