Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds minimal context by specifying the HTTP method (GET) and parameter, but doesn't disclose additional details like response format, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and method, followed by a clear parameter list. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the formatting with brackets and parentheses is slightly cluttered.

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 (filtered list operation), lack of output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return type (e.g., list of deployments), structure, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed for proper 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly lists 'composeId' as a required string parameter, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what a composeId is, its format, or where to obtain it, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 states the tool retrieves deployments by compose ID ('deployment.allByCompose (GET)'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling deployment tools like 'dokploy_deployment_all' or 'dokploy_deployment_allByServer', leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists the parameter without explaining the context or prerequisites for filtering deployments by compose ID, offering no help in tool selection.

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