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 tell the agent this is a safe, repeatable search operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (e.g., no rate limits, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 structured with a parameter list, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The first line '[environment] environment.search (GET)' is redundant with the tool name, and the parameter list lacks explanatory value. It's front-loaded with the API signature but wastes space on obvious details.

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?

For a search tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of environments), how results are ordered, or error conditions. The annotations cover safety, but the description fails to provide necessary operational context.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'q' searches for, how 'limit' and 'offset' work for pagination, what 'projectId' filters). This minimal listing doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('environment.search') and lists parameters but doesn't explain what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb-resource statement like 'search for environments' and doesn't distinguish this search tool from other environment-related tools (create, update, duplicate, remove, one, byProjectId) in the sibling list.

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 doesn't mention when to use search versus 'dokploy_environment_one' (get one environment) or 'dokploy_environment_byProjectId' (list by project), nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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