Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), which already tell the agent this is a safe, repeatable lookup operation. The description adds minimal value beyond the 'GET' method indication, but doesn't contradict the annotations. It doesn't provide additional behavioral context like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what specific domain information is returned.

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 extremely brief but not particularly well-structured. It includes the tool name, HTTP method, and parameter listing in a minimal format. While concise, it lacks proper front-loading of purpose and reads more like a technical signature than a helpful description. The information is presented but not optimally organized for understanding.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal annotations beyond basic hints, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what domain information is returned, what format the response has, or how this tool relates to other domain tools. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools list and the lack of output documentation, the description leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full context and usage.

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 and only one parameter (composeId), the description provides no semantic information about what composeId represents, what format it should have, or where to obtain it. The schema only indicates it's a required string with minimum length 1, but the description doesn't add any meaning beyond repeating the parameter name.

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 and title ('domain.byComposeId') without clarifying what it actually does. It mentions 'GET' which implies retrieval, but doesn't specify what resource is retrieved (e.g., 'retrieve domain information for a compose'). This is essentially tautological - it repeats the name without adding meaningful purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include dokploy_domain_byApplicationId, dokploy_domain_one, and other domain-related tools, the description provides no differentiation or context about when this specific composeId-based lookup is appropriate versus other domain lookup methods.

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