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 inform the agent this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'GET' and listing the parameter, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like what 'environment' entails, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. Since annotations cover the safety profile adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the structure could be improved by using complete sentences or clearer formatting. Despite this, it efficiently conveys basic information without waste.

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 has no output schema and annotations cover safety aspects, the description is incomplete for effective use. It lacks details on what 'environment' means, the return format, error conditions, or how it differs from other environment tools. For a read operation with one parameter but unclear semantics, more context is needed to guide the agent adequately.

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%, meaning the parameter 'projectId' has no description in the schema. The tool description lists 'projectId (string, required)' but provides no additional semantic context—such as what a projectId is, where to find it, format examples, or valid values. With only one parameter and no schema description, the description partially compensates by stating it's required, but fails to add meaningful clarification beyond what's inferred from the schema structure.

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 '[environment] environment.byProjectId (GET)' which is essentially a tautology of the tool name/title. It doesn't specify what 'environment' refers to in this context (e.g., deployment environment, configuration environment) or what the tool actually retrieves. While it mentions 'GET' and includes a parameter, the purpose remains vague and doesn't distinguish this from sibling environment tools like dokploy_environment_one or dokploy_environment_search.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for projectId usage, or differentiate it from other environment-related tools in the sibling list. Without this information, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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