Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds minimal context by implying a GET operation for certificates, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like response format, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 overly concise to the point of being cryptic ('[certificates] certificates.all (GET)'). It lacks a clear, front-loaded explanation of the tool's purpose, making it inefficient for quick understanding despite its brevity.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'certificates.all' entails (e.g., listing all certificates, their format, or scope), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's function and output.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 '[certificates] certificates.all (GET)' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name with minimal context, failing to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list all certificates, retrieve certificate details). It does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'dokploy_certificates_one' or 'dokploy_certificates_create'.

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 lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_certificates_one' for a single certificate), leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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