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 read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what 'converted' entails, potential side effects, or response format. Since annotations cover the safety profile adequately, the description's minimal addition results in a baseline score.

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 not effectively structured. It includes the tool name, HTTP method, and a parameter list, but the information is minimal and lacks front-loaded clarity. While concise, it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative, making it adequate but not well-organized.

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 (involving 'conversion' of a compose), no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'converted' means, the output format, or any dependencies. For a tool with potential nuance in conversion processes, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its full 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%, so the schema only indicates 'composeId' is a required string. The description lists the parameter but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what a composeId is, its format, or how it relates to conversion. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly understood.

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 HTTP method ('compose.getConvertedCompose (GET)') without explaining what 'getConvertedCompose' means. It mentions a 'composeId' parameter but doesn't clarify what resource is being retrieved or what 'converted' refers to. This is borderline tautological as it provides minimal additional meaning beyond the name.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for conversion, or related tools (e.g., other compose tools like dokploy_compose_one or dokploy_compose_processTemplate). Without usage context, an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate.

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