Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description's burden is lower. The description doesn't add any behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (e.g., no details about what 'statements' are, format of return data, or any constraints). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the minimum baseline with annotations present.

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?

While the description is extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The single bracketed phrase '[customRole] customRole.getStatements (GET)' fails to convey meaningful information and doesn't front-load key details. It's not appropriately sized for a tool that likely returns data about custom role statements.

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 likely purpose (retrieving statements for custom roles), the description is incomplete. There are no annotations about output format, no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what 'statements' are or what the return data looks like. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description fails to provide necessary context 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to explain beyond what the schema already indicates (no inputs required).

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.getStatements (GET)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with minimal formatting. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., what 'statements' are, what resource it operates on, or what 'get' means in this context). No meaningful purpose is communicated beyond the name itself.

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 provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or relationships with sibling tools (like dokploy_customRole_all, dokploy_customRole_create, etc.). The agent receives zero usage direction.

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