Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations declare (e.g., no rate limits, auth needs, or return format). 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 under-specified rather than concise. It wastes characters on redundant information ('[gitProvider]' and '(GET)') without adding meaningful content. A single sentence like 'Retrieve all configured git providers' would be more effective. This is inefficient use of limited description space.

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 (0 parameters, annotations covering safety), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'git providers' are in this context or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a read-only list operation, more context about the returned data would be helpful, though annotations reduce the burden.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't add parameter details, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4. There's no need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 '[gitProvider] gitProvider.getAll (GET)' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds minimal context (GET method). It doesn't specify what resource is being retrieved (e.g., 'list all configured git providers'), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like dokploy_gitProvider_remove. The purpose remains vague beyond the obvious 'get all' operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or relationships with sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_gitProvider_remove for deletion). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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