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, which already communicate this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'models' actually represents. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 leads with '[ai] ai.getModels (GET)' which adds little value, then lists parameters without context. While concise, it's not well-structured for understanding - the most important information (what the tool does) is missing, making the conciseness feel like under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'models' are, what format they're returned in, or how the parameters are used. The annotations cover safety aspects, but the description fails to provide necessary context about the tool's domain and expected behavior.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the 2 parameters. The description lists parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning - it doesn't explain what apiUrl should point to, what format the apiKey requires, or how these parameters relate to getting models. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 states 'ai.getModels (GET)' which restates the name/title and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'models' refers to (AI models, data models, etc.) or what action is performed (list, retrieve, etc.). This is a tautology that provides minimal value beyond the tool 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like dokploy_ai_get, dokploy_ai_getAll, and dokploy_ai_one, there's clear need for differentiation, but the description offers no context about scope, filtering, or when this specific tool is appropriate.

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