Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior, which the description does not contradict. However, it adds minimal context beyond annotations, such as the HTTP method (POST) and parameter roles, but lacks details on validation criteria, error conditions, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 HTTP method, but includes redundant parameter details that are already in the schema. While not verbose, it could be more efficient by focusing on added value rather than repeating schema information.

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 validation, lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what validation checks are performed, what the output indicates, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand tool behavior.

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 ('domain' and 'serverIp') with types and required status, but provides no semantic meaning, such as what constitutes a valid domain or how serverIp affects validation. This adds little value beyond the schema's structural information.

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 ('domain.validateDomain') and lists parameters without explaining what validation entails. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'dokploy_domain_create' or 'dokploy_domain_update', making the purpose vague beyond the name.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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