Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds minimal context by implying a GET operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like response format, pagination, or error handling. With annotations providing safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds little beyond structured data.

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 brief but under-specified, not truly concise. It includes the tool path and parameter list, but the structure is minimal and lacks explanatory content. While not verbose, it doesn't efficiently convey necessary information, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 (retrieving cluster nodes), annotations provide safety hints, but there's no output schema and schema coverage is 0%. The description doesn't explain what 'nodes' are, the return format, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 'serverId (string, optional)' but doesn't explain what 'serverId' refers to (e.g., a server identifier, its purpose, or valid values). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and optionality, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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.getNodes (GET)' which restates the name/title and HTTP method without explaining what 'getNodes' means. It doesn't specify what resource is retrieved (e.g., cluster nodes, their status, or details) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_swarm_getNodes'. This is a tautology with minimal added value.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions, and doesn't reference sibling tools for comparison. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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