Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), which cover safety and idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral context, but since annotations are comprehensive, the bar is lower. There is no contradiction with annotations (e.g., it doesn't imply mutation), so the description doesn't detract, but it also doesn't supplement with details like rate limits or authentication needs. With good annotations, a 4 reflects that the description doesn't add value but doesn't mislead.

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 ('[destination] destination.all (GET)'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to convey purpose or usage, making it ineffective. While not verbose, it lacks the necessary content to be considered concise in a helpful way—it's more of a placeholder than a structured 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 (no parameters, read-only) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'destination.all' returns (e.g., a list of destinations), and there is no output schema to compensate. For a tool that likely returns data, the description should at least hint at the return type or purpose. The annotations help, but the description leaves too much ambiguity for an agent to use it confidently.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description cannot add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there is no need for parameter explanation. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate here.

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 '[destination] destination.all (GET)' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method, which is redundant with naming conventions. It fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list all destinations, fetch destination configurations) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_destination_one' or 'dokploy_destination_create'. This provides minimal actionable information beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a destination), or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_destination_one' for a single destination). Without any usage instructions, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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