Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a GET operation, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the applicationId is invalid. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 HTTP method, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets, line breaks) and lacks a clear prose explanation. It's not wasteful, but the structure could be more polished for readability, earning a mid-range 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 low complexity (one parameter) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, it fails to explain the return value (e.g., config format) or error conditions. It meets basic needs but leaves gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 param details. The description lists 'applicationId' as required but adds no meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format, source, or examples). With one parameter and high schema structural clarity, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap but doesn't worsen it.

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 clearly states the verb 'read' and the resource 'TraefikConfig' for an application, which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dokploy_application_updateTraefikConfig' by indicating a read operation. However, it doesn't fully explain what 'TraefikConfig' entails (e.g., routing rules, middleware settings), leaving some ambiguity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing application), exclusions, or related tools like 'dokploy_settings_readTraefikConfig' for system-level configs. Usage is implied only by the parameter requirement, with no explicit context.

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