Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and idempotency, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal value by implying a GET operation and listing the parameter, but fails to disclose behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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, avoiding unnecessary details. However, the parameter listing is redundant with the schema and could be omitted for better efficiency, slightly reducing its 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 (retrieving repositories), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It misses key details like the return format, error conditions, and how results are structured, leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper 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 the parameter 'bitbucketId' but provides no semantic context—what this ID represents, where to find it, or its format. This leaves the parameter meaning unclear despite the schema defining its type and constraints.

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 repositories, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'get' means (list? fetch details?) or differentiate from sibling tools like dokploy_bitbucket_bitbucketProviders or dokploy_bitbucket_getBitbucketBranches, leaving the scope vague.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured Bitbucket provider) or comparisons to similar tools like dokploy_gitea_getGiteaRepositories, offering no usage direction.

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