Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive hints (readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable query operation. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations - it mentions the HTTP method (GET) which aligns with readOnlyHint, but doesn't describe what the operation actually does behaviorally (what 'addManager' means in practice, what the response contains, or any side effects).

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 extremely brief (two lines) but not effectively structured. It front-loads the tool name repetition rather than useful information. While concise, it wastes its limited space on redundant details rather than providing value. The parameter listing is minimal but doesn't add understanding.

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 complexity of cluster management operations and the complete lack of output schema, the description is inadequate. Annotations cover safety aspects, but the description doesn't explain what the tool actually accomplishes, what 'addManager' means, what the response looks like, or how it relates to other cluster tools. For a tool that presumably modifies cluster configuration (despite being read-only per annotations), this leaves too many unanswered questions.

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%, and the description only lists 'serverId (string, optional)' without explaining what a serverId is, where to find it, what format it should have, or what happens when it's omitted. For a single parameter with no schema documentation, the description fails to provide any meaningful semantic context about this critical input.

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 restates the tool name ('cluster.addManager') and adds '(GET)' which is tautological. It doesn't explain what 'addManager' actually does - whether it adds a manager node to a cluster, assigns a manager role to a server, or something else. The verb 'add' is vague without specifying the resource being added or the outcome.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'dokploy_cluster_addWorker', 'dokploy_cluster_getNodes', and 'dokploy_cluster_removeWorker', there's no indication of how this tool differs from those or when it's appropriate to use. The description offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or relationships to other tools.

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