Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which already convey this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds minimal value by indicating it's a GET request, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as what 'canGenerate' means in practice or what the response format might be.

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 but poorly structured. It includes the tool name, HTTP method, and parameter listing in a single block. While brief, it lacks clear organization and front-loading of essential information - the purpose should come first, not be buried in the name repetition.

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 of domain management tools and 0% schema description coverage with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (boolean, object, list), what 'TraefikMeDomains' means, or how this fits into the broader domain workflow. The annotations help but don't compensate for the missing functional explanation.

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 carries full burden for explaining parameters. The description lists 'serverId (string, required)' but provides no semantic meaning - what a serverId is, where to get it, format expectations, or how it relates to domain generation capability. This adds little value beyond what the bare schema already indicates.

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 name '[domain] domain.canGenerateTraefikMeDomains (GET)' which is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does - whether it checks capability, returns a boolean, or performs some validation. The verb 'canGenerate' is ambiguous without context about what 'TraefikMeDomains' refers to.

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. There are multiple domain-related sibling tools (dokploy_domain_generateDomain, dokploy_domain_validateDomain, dokploy_domain_byApplicationId, etc.), but the description offers no differentiation or context about when this specific tool should be invoked.

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