Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'GET', which aligns with read-only, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'service containers' entail. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description adds little value 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 concise with two lines, but it's poorly structured: the first line is tautological, and the second merely lists parameters without context. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on redundant information. It could be more efficient by integrating purpose and parameters into a cohesive sentence.

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 complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value (e.g., what 'service containers' are), how results are formatted, or any error conditions. With annotations covering safety but no output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively.

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 descriptions. The description lists parameters ('appName (string, required)' and 'serverId (string, optional)') but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what 'appName' refers to (e.g., application identifier), what 'serverId' is for, or how they affect the output. This partial listing compensates slightly but falls short of fully explaining parameter purposes.

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 with minimal additional context ('[docker] docker.getServiceContainersByAppName (GET)'), which is essentially tautological. It mentions 'docker' and 'GET' but lacks a clear, specific verb-resource statement explaining what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves containers for a service based on an app name). While it hints at a read operation, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'dokploy_docker_getContainers' or 'dokploy_docker_getContainersByAppLabel'.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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