Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal value by specifying it's a GET operation, which aligns with annotations, but doesn't disclose additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 structured with a clear header and parameter list, avoiding unnecessary fluff. However, it's under-specified—the purpose statement is minimal, and the parameter details are basic, making it less helpful than it could be without being wasteful.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'config' entails, how results are returned, or any usage context, leaving gaps that annotations alone don't cover. This reduces its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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 details. The description lists parameters 'containerId' and 'serverId' with types and required status, adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain what these IDs represent (e.g., format, source) or their impact, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 Docker configuration ('getConfig') and specifies it's a GET operation, which clarifies the action. However, it doesn't explain what 'config' means in this context (e.g., container settings, environment variables) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_docker_getContainers', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a running container), use cases (e.g., debugging, inspection), or comparisons to other Docker-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'dokploy_docker_restartContainer'.

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