Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), indicating safe, non-destructive, repeatable operations with open-world assumptions. The description adds minimal context by specifying it's a GET request, which aligns with read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all' entails. With annotations covering key behavioral aspects, the description adds some value but not rich details.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it's under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and lacks essential details, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information.

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 (deployment operations), lack of output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of deployments), how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description lists 'applicationId (string, required)' but doesn't explain what an applicationId is, its format, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal semantics beyond the schema's structural information, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 and title with minimal additional information ('deployment.all (GET)'), which is essentially a tautology. It doesn't specify what 'all' refers to (e.g., all deployments for an application) or what the tool actually returns, making the purpose vague and not clearly distinguished from sibling tools like 'dokploy_deployment_allByCompose' or 'dokploy_deployment_allByServer'.

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 lacks context about its intended use case, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other deployment-related tools in the list), leaving the agent with no usage instructions.

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