Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe, non-destructive, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'GET', which aligns with the annotations but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description meets a baseline but lacks enriching context.

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 under-specified rather than concise; it consists of a tautological line and a parameter listing that repeats the schema. It lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on redundant information. While brief, it fails to convey essential details efficiently, making it ineffective rather than succinct.

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 (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or how this tool fits into the broader certificate management context. While annotations cover safety, the description fails to provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's role and expected outcomes fully.

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 description lists 'certificateId (string, required)' under 'Parameters:', which mirrors the input schema exactly. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does not add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., explaining what a certificateId is, its format, or where to find it). However, since there is only one parameter and the schema defines it clearly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for the low coverage but the parameter is straightforward.

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.one (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with minimal additional context. It mentions 'certificates' and 'GET' but lacks a specific verb-action-resource combination that clearly states what the tool does (e.g., 'Retrieve details for a specific certificate'). It does not distinguish this tool from sibling certificate tools like 'dokploy_certificates_all' or 'dokploy_certificates_create', leaving the purpose 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools for comparison. Without any usage instructions, the agent lacks direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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