Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), so the description's burden is lower. It adds minimal context by specifying the HTTP method (GET) and implying server-scoped filtering, but doesn't describe response format, pagination, error conditions, or authentication needs. 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, avoiding unnecessary elaboration. However, the formatting with brackets and parentheses ('[deployment] deployment.allByServer (GET)') is slightly cluttered, and the parameter listing is minimal but not wasteful.

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 purpose (listing deployments by server), the description is incomplete. It lacks output details (no schema provided), doesn't clarify the relationship to sibling deployment tools, and omits parameter semantics. While annotations cover safety, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective use in a complex deployment management system.

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 description must compensate. It only lists the parameter name ('serverId') without explaining what a serverId is, its format, or where to obtain it. This leaves the parameter's meaning and usage ambiguous, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 server ('deployment.allByServer (GET)'), which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling deployment tools like 'dokploy_deployment_all', 'dokploy_deployment_allByCompose', or 'dokploy_deployment_allByType', leaving the agent to infer differences from naming alone.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for selecting this over other deployment listing tools, or any exclusions. The agent must rely solely on the tool name to guess usage scenarios.

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