Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds minimal context by specifying the HTTP method (GET), but doesn't disclose additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the applicationId is invalid. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 tool name and method, followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the formatting with brackets and lack of complete sentences slightly reduces readability. Overall, it's efficient but could be more polished.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., what domain data is fetched), error conditions, or examples, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior in 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 lists the parameter (applicationId) and its type/requirement, but doesn't explain its meaning (e.g., what constitutes a valid ID, where to find it, or format examples). This adds basic semantics but falls short of fully clarifying usage, resulting in a baseline score.

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 domain information by application ID ('domain.byApplicationId (GET)'), which clarifies the verb (GET) and resource (domain). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_domain_byComposeId' or 'dokploy_domain_one', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others for domain-related queries.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the application must exist or be deployed, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dokploy_domain_byComposeId' for similar queries. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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