Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal value by indicating this is a GET operation, which aligns with the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like what specific AI resource is retrieved, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 brief - just one line with minimal formatting. While concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure with 'Parameters:' heading is somewhat organized, but the content lacks substance. Every sentence should earn its place, and here the single line provides little value beyond what's already evident from the tool name.

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 complexity of AI management tools and the lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. With rich annotations but 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should explain what this tool returns (e.g., AI configuration details, model information) and provide more context about the 'aiId' parameter. The current description leaves too many gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. The description lists 'aiId (string, required)' which simply repeats the parameter name and type from the schema without adding any semantic meaning. It doesn't explain what an 'aiId' represents, where to find it, format constraints, or example values.

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 '[ai] ai.get (GET)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It mentions 'ai.get' which mirrors the tool name 'dokploy_ai_get', and adds '(GET)' which is redundant with the title. There's no clear statement of purpose like 'retrieve AI configuration' or 'fetch AI model details'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'dokploy_ai_getAll', 'dokploy_ai_one', and 'dokploy_ai_getModels', there's no indication of when this specific 'get' operation is appropriate versus those other retrieval tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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