Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal value by indicating this is a GET operation, which aligns with the read-only annotation. However, it doesn't provide any additional context about what 'bitbucketProviders' represents, what data is returned, or any system-specific behaviors.

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 informative. It consists of a single bracketed phrase that doesn't form a complete sentence or provide meaningful information. The structure doesn't front-load key information about the tool's purpose or usage.

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 rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is still inadequate. For a tool that presumably retrieves Bitbucket provider information, the description should explain what 'bitbucketProviders' are in this context, what data is returned, and how this differs from other provider-related tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally indicate what kind of data is returned.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters since there are none. The schema fully documents the empty input structure, so no additional parameter semantics are required from the description.

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 '[bitbucket] bitbucket.bitbucketProviders (GET)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does - whether it lists, retrieves, or manages Bitbucket providers. While it mentions 'bitbucketProviders', it doesn't explain what these are or what operation is being performed on them beyond the generic 'GET'.

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. There are multiple sibling tools related to Bitbucket (dokploy_bitbucket_create, dokploy_bitbucket_one, dokploy_bitbucket_update) and other provider tools (dokploy_gitea_giteaProviders, dokploy_github_githubProviders, dokploy_gitlab_gitlabProviders), but no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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