Retrieve and display the SSO sign-in options configured for your Dokploy instance.
GET /sso.showSignInWithSSO
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": "sso-showSignInWithSSO"
}
}| 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?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint). It does not disclose what the tool returns, side effects, or any operational constraints.
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 extremely short but under-specified. It fails to include essential information such as the tool's purpose or return value. Every sentence should earn its place; this single line merely repeats the tool name and method, providing no new value.
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 lack of output schema and the rich set of sibling SSO tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, thus an agent cannot determine if this tool fulfills its goal. For a tool with no parameters and simple safety profile, this is a critical gap.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully describes the input. According to the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. 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 is merely the HTTP endpoint 'GET /sso.showSignInWithSSO', which restates the tool name and method but does not explain what the tool actually does. It fails to convey whether it retrieves a sign-in UI, checks SSO status, or returns configuration. This is barely more informative than a tautology.
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 its siblings like sso-listProviders or sso-one. The description provides no context about prerequisite conditions, intended scenarios, 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.