Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context by specifying it's a GET operation, but doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'stack containers' entails. It doesn't contradict annotations, but 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 concise and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the parameter section could be more integrated into the purpose statement for better flow. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly structured.

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 (Docker container retrieval), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stack containers' are, the return format, or error conditions. Annotations help with safety, but the description fails to provide enough context for effective use.

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 lists parameters (appName, serverId) and their types/requirements, but adds no semantic meaning—no explanation of what 'appName' refers to, what 'serverId' is used for, or format examples. This fails to address the coverage gap, leaving parameters 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 stack containers by app name, which is a clear purpose with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('stack containers'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling Docker container tools like 'dokploy_docker_getContainers' or 'dokploy_docker_getContainersByAppLabel', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others.

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 only lists parameters without explaining context, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar Docker container retrieval tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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