Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide good safety information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable query operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations - it specifies HTTP method (GET) and parameter requirements, but doesn't describe what 'match' means (exact, partial, regex), what the output contains, or any constraints like pagination or rate limits.

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 parameter list, but it's inefficiently formatted with brackets and redundant information. The '[docker] docker.getContainersByAppNameMatch (GET)' repeats what's already in the name/title. The parameter list is clear but lacks explanatory value. While concise, it fails to use its limited space effectively to convey meaningful information.

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?

For a query tool with 3 parameters (one required), 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how matching works, or provide examples of valid inputs. The annotations cover safety aspects, but the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics and output information that an agent needs to use this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for explaining parameters. It lists parameter names and types but provides no semantic meaning: what 'appType' represents, what 'appName' should contain, what 'serverId' identifies, or how these parameters interact. The enum values for appType are listed but not explained. This leaves critical gaps in understanding how to use the parameters effectively.

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 restates the tool name ('docker.getContainersByAppNameMatch') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'getContainersByAppNameMatch' means operationally - whether it searches, filters, or retrieves containers matching an app name pattern. This is essentially a tautology of the name with parameter documentation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools include several docker-related tools (dokploy_docker_getContainers, dokploy_docker_getContainersByAppLabel, dokploy_docker_getServiceContainersByAppName, dokploy_docker_getStackContainersByAppName), the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or explain its specific use case.

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