Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'GET', which aligns with read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'compose.one' entails (e.g., retrieving a single compose resource). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 header and parameter list, avoiding redundancy. However, it's overly terse, sacrificing clarity for brevity. Every sentence (or line) serves a purpose, but the content is minimal, making it efficient yet under-informative.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'compose.one' returns or its role in the system, leaving gaps in understanding despite annotations covering safety. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools, more context is needed for effective use.

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%, with one required parameter 'composeId'. The description lists the parameter but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what a composeId is, format examples, or where to find it). Given low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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 '[compose] compose.one (GET)' restates the tool name and HTTP method but provides minimal functional clarity. It mentions 'compose' which suggests a Docker Compose context, but doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., retrieve, view, get details). Compared to sibling tools like 'dokploy_compose_create' or 'dokploy_compose_delete', the purpose is vague and lacks a clear verb+resource distinction.

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 prerequisites, context, or differentiate from other compose-related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_compose_search', 'dokploy_compose_getTags'). The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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