Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide strong hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context by implying it's a GET operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what monitoring data is returned, format, rate limits, or authentication needs. It doesn't contradict annotations, so no penalty.

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 not front-loaded with useful information. It wastes space on redundant details like '(GET)' and a basic parameter list without explanation. However, it's not overly verbose, so it avoids a lower score.

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 complexity (monitoring implies data retrieval), lack of output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what monitoring data is fetched, the return format, or error conditions. Annotations help but don't fully compensate for these gaps.

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. It lists 'appName' as a required string parameter but adds no semantic meaning (e.g., what constitutes a valid appName, examples, or how it relates to monitoring). This is inadequate given the coverage gap.

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 title ('application.readAppMonitoring') without adding meaningful context. It mentions 'GET' which is redundant with readOnlyHint, and lists the parameter but doesn't explain what 'readAppMonitoring' actually does (e.g., retrieves monitoring data for an application). This is closer to tautology than clear purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many application-related tools (e.g., dokploy_application_one, dokploy_application_search, dokploy_application_readTraefikConfig), but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or specify prerequisites.

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