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, which already convey that this is a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation with open-world semantics. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method 'GET', implying it's a retrieval operation, which aligns with the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 with two lines, but it's poorly structured and lacks front-loading of key information. The first line '[compose] compose.templates (GET)' is cryptic, and the parameter listing is minimal. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it under-specifies critical details, making it less helpful than a more informative yet concise description would be.

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 (1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'compose.templates' are, what the tool returns (e.g., a list of templates, their structure), or how the optional 'baseUrl' affects the operation. With annotations covering safety but no output schema, the description should provide more context about the resource and expected outcomes.

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 lists 'baseUrl (string, optional)' under 'Parameters:', but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides (type and optionality). It fails to explain what 'baseUrl' is used for (e.g., API endpoint override, server context) or provide examples, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate more effectively.

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.templates (GET)' is vague and tautological, essentially restating the tool name with minimal context. It mentions 'compose.templates' but doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., list, retrieve, fetch) or what resource is involved (e.g., Docker Compose templates). It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'dokploy_compose_create' or 'dokploy_compose_deployTemplate', leaving the purpose unclear.

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 any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'dokploy_compose_deployTemplate' or 'dokploy_compose_getConvertedCompose' that might be related. This lack of usage context makes it difficult for an agent to determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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