Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation, which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it hints at a POST request but doesn't explain effects like whether this enables monitoring, requires admin privileges, or impacts system performance. With annotations covering safety traits, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.

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 brief but inefficiently structured—it includes administrative details like '[admin]' and 'POST' without front-loading the tool's purpose. While concise, it wastes space on redundant information (name restatement) instead of providing actionable insights, making it less helpful despite its short length.

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 complexity (nested schema, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's role in monitoring setup, expected outcomes, or error conditions. With annotations providing some behavioral hints but no output schema, the description should offer more context to guide the agent effectively, but it does not, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only lists 'metricsConfig (object, required)' without detailing what this config includes (e.g., server and container settings, thresholds) or its purpose. Given the complex nested schema with 1 parameter but many sub-properties, this lack of semantic information leaves the agent guessing about required inputs, resulting in a low score.

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 restates the tool name and title ('admin.setupMonitoring') without adding meaningful context about what the tool actually does. It mentions 'POST' and lists a parameter, but fails to specify the action (e.g., configure, enable, initialize monitoring) or the resource affected (e.g., server monitoring, container metrics). This is tautological and provides minimal clarity beyond the name.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after server setup, for admin users only), or related tools (e.g., dokploy_server_getServerMetrics for reading metrics). Without any usage instructions, the agent lacks direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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