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 search operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. Since annotations cover the safety profile adequately, the description meets the lower bar but adds minimal value.

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 concise but poorly structured. It front-loads with '[compose] compose.search (GET)' which is redundant, followed by a parameter list that adds little value. While not verbose, the content does not earn its place effectively, leading to under-specification rather than clarity.

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 (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks purpose, usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral details beyond annotations. For a search tool with multiple filtering options, this leaves the agent without sufficient context to use it correctly.

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 must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only lists parameter names without any semantics, such as what 'q' searches for or how 'limit' and 'offset' control pagination. This fails to add value beyond the schema, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 merely restates the tool name with '[compose] compose.search (GET)' and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It fails to specify the verb (search) and resource (compose applications) clearly, making it a tautology of the name/title. No distinction from sibling tools like 'dokploy_compose_one' or 'dokploy_compose_templates' is provided.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_compose_one' for fetching a single compose, 'dokploy_compose_templates' for templates), the lack of usage 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.