Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds minimal context by implying it's a GET operation for a queue list, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'queue' specifically entails (e.g., pending deployments). With annotations providing safety and idempotency, a score of 3 reflects some added value but limited behavioral insight.

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.queueList (GET)'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to front-load key information like purpose or usage, and the bracketed format adds no value. While short, it lacks the structure needed for clarity, making it ineffective as a concise description.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, rich annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'queueList' returns (e.g., list of pending deployments), and there's no output schema to compensate. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a deployment system, but the description fails to provide necessary context for the agent to understand the tool's role or output. With annotations covering safety, more descriptive content is needed for full comprehension.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, though it also doesn't enhance understanding beyond the 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 '[deployment] deployment.queueList (GET)' restates the name and title with minimal added meaning. It indicates the tool is related to deployments and queue listing via GET, but lacks a clear verb+resource statement like 'Retrieve the current deployment queue' and doesn't distinguish it from sibling deployment tools (e.g., dokploy_deployment_all, dokploy_deployment_allByType). This is closer to tautology than a purposeful description.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like dokploy_deployment_all or dokploy_application_cleanQueues that might handle similar queue-related operations. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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