Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover - no information about pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes a successful search.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It wastes space repeating the tool name and 'GET' method without providing meaningful content. The parameter list format is readable but doesn't compensate for the lack of actual description content.

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 search tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'searching applications' means, how results are returned, what the filtering logic is (AND/OR), or provide any examples. The annotations help with safety but don't address core functionality 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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. It merely lists parameter names without any semantic explanation of what they filter (e.g., 'q' for general search, 'name' vs 'appName' distinction, 'projectId' for scoping). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's type information.

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 ('application.search') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify that this searches for applications or what resource it operates on, making it a tautology of the name rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_one' (get single application) and other search tools (e.g., 'dokploy_environment_search'), the description offers no context about when this search is appropriate versus other lookup methods.

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