Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dokploy MCP Server

Dokploy MCP Server

by bravos2k5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

patch-readRepoFile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a repository file for any application or compose project by specifying the project ID and file path.

Instructions

GET /patch.readRepoFile

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "patch-readRepoFile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
typeYes
filePathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what data is returned or any side effects. It neither contradicts nor enhances the annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. It is too short to convey essential information; it should include at least a brief purpose statement.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity of three required parameters, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is severely under-documented. The agent lacks sufficient information to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters (id, type, filePath). The description does not explain these parameters at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage.

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?

The description is simply 'GET /patch.readRepoFile', which indicates an HTTP method and endpoint but does not clearly state what the tool does or what resource it acts upon. It is vague and fails to differentiate from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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