Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'getAll' entails (e.g., pagination, sorting). Since annotations are comprehensive, the bar is lower, but the description does not enhance understanding beyond the structured data.

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 ('[ai] ai.getAll (GET)'), but this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to convey purpose or usage, making it ineffective despite its short length. Every sentence should earn its place, and this single fragment does not provide sufficient 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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, comprehensive annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks purpose clarity and usage guidelines, and there is no output schema to explain return values. While annotations cover behavioral aspects, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does or when to use it, making it inadequate overall.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description does not add parameter information, which is unnecessary here. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description need not compensate for any gaps.

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.getAll (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and adding the HTTP method. It does not specify what resource 'ai' refers to or what 'getAll' actually retrieves. While it distinguishes from siblings by implying a bulk retrieval operation, it lacks a clear verb+resource statement like 'retrieve all AI models' or similar.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'dokploy_ai_get' or 'dokploy_ai_getModels' for comparison. This leaves the agent with no usage instructions.

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