Retrieve the public IP address of the Dokploy server. Use this to identify the server's external network address.
GET /server.publicIp
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "server-publicIp"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not contradict them either.
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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it adds little value beyond the tool name. It is more under-specified than concise, though acceptable for a trivially simple tool.
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?
With no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., the public IP as a string). It does not, leaving the agent without knowledge of what the tool returns. Context signals show no parameters, but completeness is lacking.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema fully covers that. According to guidelines, no parameters earns a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information.
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 'GET /server.publicIp' essentially restates the tool name and HTTP method, making it clear that it retrieves the server's public IP. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'settings-getIp' or 'server-all', which could also provide IP information.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not clarify how it differs from 'settings-getIp' or why one might choose this over other server-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.