Dokploy MCP Server

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

The 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 specifying 'GET' as the HTTP method, which aligns with the read-only nature indicated by annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional context about what 'ai.one' represents, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format.

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 two lines. While this is technically concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure with 'Parameters:' heading is clear, but the content lacks substance. Every sentence should earn its place, and here the minimal content doesn't provide adequate guidance for tool selection and invocation.

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 apparent purpose (retrieving AI-related data), the lack of output schema, and minimal annotations context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'ai.one' represents, what data is returned, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. For a tool that likely retrieves specific AI configuration or status information, the description leaves too many unanswered questions about its function and appropriate usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter (aiId), the description should compensate but fails to do so. The description lists 'aiId (string, required)' but provides no context about what an aiId is, where to find valid values, or what format it should follow. This adds almost no semantic meaning beyond what the bare schema already indicates through its type and required constraints.

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] ai.one (GET)' which is tautological - it essentially repeats the tool name 'dokploy_ai_one' with minimal clarification. It doesn't specify what resource 'ai.one' refers to or what the GET operation actually retrieves. While it mentions 'GET' as the HTTP method, this doesn't explain the tool's functional purpose beyond what's already implied by 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?

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'dokploy_ai_get', 'dokploy_ai_getAll', and 'dokploy_ai_getModels' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusion criteria.

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