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, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation that may return varying data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'allCentralized' entails, but does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by their presence.

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 extremely brief ('[deployment] deployment.allCentralized (GET)'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It lacks essential details like the tool's purpose or usage context, making it ineffective despite its short length. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase fails to provide meaningful value.

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 (implied by the 'allCentralized' term and deployment context), the description is incomplete. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or its scope. Sibling tools suggest it might list deployments, but without clarification, the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand its 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as per the rules for tools with zero parameters, as there is no need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 '[deployment] deployment.allCentralized (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with minimal additional context. It indicates a GET operation on a deployment resource but lacks specificity about what 'allCentralized' means or what resource it operates on, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_deployment_all' 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information to differentiate it from other deployment-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'dokploy_deployment_all' or 'dokploy_deployment_allByType'.

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