Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context—it implies a POST request to test connectivity. However, it lacks details on what the test involves (e.g., network check, auth validation), expected outcomes, or error handling, leaving gaps despite annotations.

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 poorly structured: it starts with a redundant line '[bitbucket] bitbucket.testConnection (POST)' and then lists parameters without explanation. This format is inefficient and not front-loaded with useful information. While concise in length, it wastes space on unhelpful repetition rather than providing clear guidance.

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 (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status, error messages) or how parameters interact. With annotations providing some safety context but no output schema, the description fails to complete the 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 but provides no semantic meaning—e.g., what 'bitbucketId' represents, how 'apiToken' differs from 'appPassword', or when optional fields are needed. This leaves parameters largely unexplained, failing to add value beyond the schema's structural 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 states the tool is for testing a Bitbucket connection, which is a specific purpose. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_bitbucket_create' or 'dokploy_bitbucket_update', nor does it specify what 'testConnection' entails beyond the name. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with parameter listing.

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, typical use cases (e.g., after configuring Bitbucket credentials), or what constitutes a successful test. Without this context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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