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 indicate this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what data is returned, error conditions, or rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and method, but it's inefficiently structured with a parameter list that adds little value. It could be more concise by integrating the parameter info into a clearer purpose statement, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 implied by sibling tools and the lack of output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what an 'application' is in this context, what data is returned, or how this fits into the broader application management workflow. Annotations cover safety, but the description fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists 'applicationId (string, required)' but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what an applicationId is, where to find it, or its format. This minimal information doesn't adequately compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 adds '(GET)' and a parameter list, but it's essentially a tautology that doesn't explain what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'application.one' means or what resource it retrieves, and it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_get' or 'dokploy_application_search'.

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 many sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_get', 'dokploy_application_search', and 'dokploy_application_getAll', there's no indication of when this specific 'one' tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what context it serves.

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