Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide strong hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds minimal behavioral context by implying a GET operation, but doesn't detail output format, pagination, error handling, or serverId implications. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description adds little beyond them.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('docker.getContainers (GET)'), avoiding unnecessary words. However, the parameter listing is minimal and could be more integrated. It's efficient but slightly under-specified rather than overly concise.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety but not operational details, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error cases, and serverId usage, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation in a complex Docker management 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only lists 'serverId (string, optional)' without explaining what serverId refers to, its format, or when it's needed. This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, leaving the parameter poorly understood.

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 containers, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'getContainers' means in practice (e.g., list, fetch details) or differentiate it from similar sibling tools like 'dokploy_docker_getContainersByAppLabel' or 'dokploy_docker_getServiceContainersByAppName'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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, context (e.g., server selection), or exclusions. With many sibling Docker container tools, this omission leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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