Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true) already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation that may return partial results. The description adds minimal value by including '(GET)', which aligns with read-only behavior but doesn't contradict annotations. However, it lacks additional context such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails (e.g., pagination, filtering).

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 overly concise to the point of being cryptic. It consists of a single fragment '[customRole] customRole.all (GET)' that lacks complete sentences or clear structure. While brevity is good, this under-specifies the tool's purpose and fails to communicate effectively, making it inefficient for an agent's understanding.

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 0 parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'all' returns (e.g., a list of custom roles) or any behavioral nuances, leaving gaps in understanding despite the annotations covering safety and idempotency. For a read operation, more detail on the return value would be helpful.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to describe. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.

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 '[customRole] customRole.all (GET)' is a tautology that restates the name and title without clarifying what the tool does. It mentions 'customRole' and 'all' but doesn't specify the action (e.g., list, retrieve) or the resource scope, making it vague. While it includes '(GET)' which hints at a read operation, it fails to provide a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 context, prerequisites, or sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_customRole_create, dokploy_customRole_update) that might be relevant for different operations. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed selection among related tools.

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