Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a GET operation, but doesn't disclose important details like what format the members are returned in, whether there's pagination, or any authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 but inefficiently structured. It wastes space repeating the tool name and includes a parameter listing that adds little value without context. While not verbose, it fails to front-load essential information about the tool's purpose.

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 1 parameter (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'members' are, what data structure is returned, or how this tool relates to other customRole operations. The annotations help with safety context, but the functional understanding remains incomplete.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description only lists 'roleName (string, required)' without explaining what this parameter represents, what valid values are, or how it's used. It doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving the parameter's meaning 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 restates the tool name ('customRole.membersByRole') and HTTP method ('GET') without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being retrieved (members of a custom role) or what 'members' refers to (users, groups, etc.). This is essentially a tautology that adds little beyond the name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes other customRole tools (all, create, getStatements, remove, update), but the description doesn't explain how this differs from them or when it's appropriate to retrieve members versus other role operations.

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