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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal value by indicating 'GET', which aligns with read-only behavior, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with two lines, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The first line is vague, and the parameter listing is minimal. While not verbose, it lacks essential details, making it less helpful despite its 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 complexity (a read operation with one required parameter), annotations cover safety, but the description lacks purpose clarity, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete, failing to provide sufficient context for effective tool 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'environmentId (string, required)' but does not explain what this parameter represents (e.g., an ID format, source, or example). This adds only basic structural information without meaningful semantics, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 '[environment] environment.one (GET)' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name 'environment_one' with minimal context ('environment' and 'GET'), but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific environment). It lacks a clear verb-resource combination and does not distinguish from siblings like 'dokploy_environment_search' or 'dokploy_environment_byProjectId'.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios compared to other environment-related tools in the sibling list.

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