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 a safe, repeatable operation. The description adds that it's a GET method, which is consistent with read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'addWorker' entails beyond the method. 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 under-specified, not concise. It includes redundant formatting like brackets and 'GET', but lacks essential information in a structured way. Sentences like 'Parameters: - serverId (string, optional)' are minimal but don't earn their place by adding value, making it inefficient rather than brief.

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 operations, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., what happens after adding a worker), error conditions, or how it integrates with other tools like 'dokploy_cluster_getNodes'. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no output details, it should provide more context.

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%, with one optional parameter 'serverId' of type string. The description lists 'serverId (string, optional)' but adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as what serverId refers to (e.g., target server identifier) or its role in adding a worker. With low coverage, it fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 'cluster.addWorker (GET)' which partially indicates adding a worker to a cluster via GET method, but it's vague about what 'addWorker' actually does (e.g., provisions, joins, or registers a worker). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'dokploy_cluster_addManager' or 'dokploy_cluster_removeWorker', leaving the specific action unclear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate (e.g., scaling clusters), or comparisons to siblings like 'dokploy_cluster_addManager' or 'dokploy_cluster_getNodes', making it misleading for selection.

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