Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety information. However, it adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a GET operation, which aligns with readOnlyHint. No additional behavioral details (like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'load' entails) are provided, but annotations cover the core safety profile adequately.

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 and structured with a clear header and parameter list, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The first line repeats obvious information (tool name and HTTP method), and the parameter list lacks explanatory value. While not verbose, it fails to use its limited space effectively to clarify the tool's purpose.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety but not operational context, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'services' are being loaded, the expected output format, or how the optional 'type' parameter affects behavior. For a tool with undocumented parameters and no output schema, more descriptive 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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description lists parameters (composeId, type with enum values fetch/cache) but provides no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what composeId refers to, what 'type' controls, or the difference between 'fetch' and 'cache' modes. This adds minimal value beyond the bare parameter names and enum values.

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 ('compose.loadServices') and HTTP method ('GET') without explaining what 'loadServices' means or what resource it operates on. It doesn't specify whether this loads service definitions, configurations, or statuses for a compose project. The purpose is vague and essentially tautological with the tool 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?

There is absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the 'compose' category (like dokploy_compose_loadMountsByService, dokploy_compose_one, dokploy_compose_search), the description provides no context about when this specific loading operation is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other compose-related tools.

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