Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal value by indicating it's a GET operation, which aligns with the read-only annotation. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover - no information about rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'default command' actually means in practice.

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 concise - just two lines that show the tool context, name, HTTP method, and parameter. There's no wasted text or redundancy. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading the purpose rather than starting with bracketed context. It's efficient but could be more purpose-driven in its organization.

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 this is a read operation (per annotations) with no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It doesn't describe the return value format, what a 'default command' looks like, or any error scenarios. With 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description fails to compensate for these gaps. For a tool that presumably returns some command string or configuration, this is inadequate.

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?

The description mentions 'Parameters: - composeId (string, required)' which exactly mirrors the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description at least identifies the parameter. However, it doesn't add any semantic meaning - it doesn't explain what composeId represents, what format it should be in, where to find it, or what happens if an invalid ID is provided. The baseline is 3 because the description acknowledges the parameter exists but doesn't add meaningful context.

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 '[compose] compose.getDefaultCommand (GET)' which is tautological - it essentially repeats the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't explain what a 'default command' is, what resource it retrieves it from, or what the command is used for. While it mentions 'compose' context, it doesn't specify what this default command represents (e.g., Docker Compose command, deployment command, etc.).

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what other tools might be related. Given the many sibling tools in the Dokploy system (including other compose_* tools), this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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