Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds minimal value by implying it's a GET request, but doesn't contradict annotations. However, it misses opportunities to clarify rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which would enhance transparency beyond annotations.

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 but poorly structured and under-specified. It includes a parameter list, which is useful, but the opening phrase '[domain] domain.one (GET)' is cryptic and not front-loaded with clear purpose. While concise, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how domainId relates to other domain tools, or any error conditions. Annotations cover safety, but the description lacks necessary operational 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%, and the description only lists 'domainId (string, required)' without explaining what a domainId is, its format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear despite the simple single-parameter schema.

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 '[domain] domain.one (GET)' is vague and tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'dokploy_domain_one' without clarifying what it actually does. It mentions 'domain' and 'GET' but doesn't specify the action (e.g., retrieve, fetch, view) or what resource it operates on, failing to distinguish it from sibling domain tools like 'dokploy_domain_create' or 'dokploy_domain_delete'.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons with other domain-related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_domain_byApplicationId'), leaving the agent without any usage direction.

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