Dokploy MCP Server

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description only adds that it's a GET operation, which is implied by readOnlyHint=true. It doesn't describe response format, error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements that would be valuable for an agent.

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 repeating the tool name and HTTP method while providing minimal useful information. The parameter listing is formatted but lacks explanatory value. While not verbose, it fails to front-load the most important information about what the tool actually accomplishes.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety properties, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'mounts' are in this context, what format the response takes, or how this tool relates to the broader compose/mounts functionality evident in sibling tools. For a tool that presumably returns structured data about service mounts, this leaves too many unknowns.

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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. It merely lists parameter names (composeId, serviceName) with types but provides no semantic meaning - what these IDs refer to, format expectations, or how they relate to each other. This leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand what values to provide.

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 title ('compose.loadMountsByService') without explaining what it actually does. It mentions 'GET' but doesn't specify what resource is being retrieved - mounts for a service in a compose configuration. This is essentially a tautology that provides minimal value beyond the name itself.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any sibling tools (like dokploy_mounts_listByServiceId or dokploy_compose_loadServices) that might be related, nor does it specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or limitations for using this tool.

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