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 a safe, repeatable read operation with open-world semantics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, only noting it's a GET request. It does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 includes a redundant parameter list that mirrors the schema without adding value. The structure is clear but could be more efficient by omitting the parameter enumeration or enhancing it with meaningful explanations.

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 (2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or how parameters interact. Annotations cover safety, but without output schema or richer parameter explanations, the description leaves significant gaps for effective tool 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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameters ('id' and 'type') but does not explain their semantics (e.g., what 'id' refers to, the meaning of 'type' values). It repeats the enum values from the schema without adding context, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 type with a GET request, providing a verb ('allByType') and resource ('deployment'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'allByType' means (e.g., retrieving all deployments of a given type for an ID) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_deployment_all' or 'dokploy_deployment_allByCompose', which have similar retrieval purposes but different filtering criteria.

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 mentions parameters but does not indicate scenarios for its use, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'dokploy_deployment_all' (which likely retrieves all deployments without type filtering). This leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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