Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. However, it adds minimal context beyond the HTTP method (GET) and parameter list, failing to detail aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. With annotations covering safety, the description provides basic but insufficient behavioral insight.

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, followed by a parameter list. It avoids redundancy but is overly terse, missing explanatory context. The structure is clear but could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, error handling, authentication, or how it integrates with other Bitbucket tools. Annotations provide safety hints, but the description fails to complete the contextual picture for effective agent use.

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 parameters (owner, repo, bitbucketId) and their types/requirements, but adds no semantic meaning—e.g., what 'owner' refers to (username, organization), how 'bitbucketId' is used, or format examples. This leaves parameters under-specified despite the low schema coverage.

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 states the tool retrieves Bitbucket branches (verb+resource) but lacks specificity about scope or format. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like dokploy_gitea_getGiteaBranches or dokploy_github_getGithubBranches beyond the Bitbucket context. The purpose is clear but generic.

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a configured Bitbucket provider, or differentiate it from other branch-fetching tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied by the parameter list but not explicitly stated.

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