Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'fetchSourceType' returns, whether it has side effects, or what authentication/rate limits apply. For a POST operation with openWorldHint=true, the description should clarify what 'source type' means and how the fetch works.

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 inefficiently structured—it wastes space on obvious details like '(POST)' and a redundant parameter list. The first line could directly state the tool's purpose. However, it's not overly verbose, so it avoids a lower score.

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 implied by 'fetchSourceType' (likely retrieving metadata about a compose resource), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'source type' is, what values might be returned, or how this integrates with other compose tools. For a tool with potential nuance, more context is needed.

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 repeats the parameter name ('composeId') without explaining what a composeId is, where to find it, or its format. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's basic type/requirement constraints. With 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate by clarifying the parameter's purpose.

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 and method (POST) without explaining what 'fetchSourceType' means or what resource it operates on. It mentions 'compose' but doesn't specify if this is about Docker Compose files, templates, or something else. Compared to sibling tools like 'dokploy_compose_create' or 'dokploy_compose_deploy', it's unclear what specific action this performs.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or what problem this tool solves. With many compose-related siblings (e.g., 'dokploy_compose_getTags', 'dokploy_compose_loadServices'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate.

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