Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds value by specifying it's a GET operation and implying it returns containers filtered by app label, providing useful context beyond the annotations.

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 but front-loaded with the tool name and method. However, it includes redundant information like '[docker] docker.getContainersByAppLabel' and formats parameters in a list that doesn't add semantic value, making it somewhat inefficient.

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 Docker container retrieval, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., container list format), error conditions, or how the app label filtering works, leaving significant gaps 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 description must compensate, but it only lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'appName' represents (e.g., label key/value), what 'serverId' refers to, or the implications of the 'type' enum choices (standalone vs. swarm).

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 by app label, which is a clear purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'app label' means in this context or how it differs from similar tools like 'dokploy_docker_getContainersByAppNameMatch' or 'dokploy_docker_getContainers', leaving sibling differentiation 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 lists parameters but doesn't explain the context for choosing this specific container lookup method over other Docker container retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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