Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it implies a test action via 'POST' but doesn't disclose what 'testConnection' entails (e.g., whether it validates credentials, pings a service, returns success/failure, or has side effects like logging). For a tool with no output schema, more detail on expected behavior would be helpful, but it 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 concise and front-loaded with the tool name and method, followed by a structured parameter list. However, the parameter list is redundant with the schema and doesn't add value, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's well-structured but could be more purposeful in its brevity.

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 complexity of 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool tests, what the parameters mean, what the expected outcome is, or how it differs from sibling test tools. For a connection-testing tool with sensitive parameters like 'secretAccessKey', more context is needed to ensure correct and secure usage.

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 description lists parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines data types and constraints, leaving parameters like 'provider' (type 'any') and 'secretAccessKey' completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters represent (e.g., provider could be AWS S3, endpoint is the service URL), making it inadequate for guiding usage.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'destination.testConnection' without explaining what it actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being tested (e.g., storage destination configuration) or what 'testConnection' means in this context (e.g., validating credentials, connectivity, or permissions). While it mentions 'POST' which indicates an action, the purpose remains vague and indistinguishable from sibling tools like dokploy_bitbucket_testConnection or dokploy_gitea_testConnection.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a destination configuration first), context (e.g., during setup or troubleshooting), or exclusions (e.g., not for production use). With many sibling tools including other testConnection variants, the lack of differentiation makes it impossible for an agent to determine when this specific tool is appropriate.

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