Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a GET operation, implying it's a read-only fetch. However, it does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are invalid, leaving some gaps despite the annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary details, but the structure could be improved by separating the purpose statement from parameters more clearly. Every sentence (or line) serves a purpose, making it efficient.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, no nested objects) and rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), the description is somewhat complete. However, with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, it fails to explain the return format (e.g., list of branch names) or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context for invocation.

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 parameters (owner, repositoryName, giteaId) with types and required status, adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it does not explain what these parameters mean (e.g., owner is the Gitea user/organization, giteaId might be a provider identifier), leaving significant ambiguity for the agent to interpret correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'gitea.getGiteaBranches (GET)' indicates it retrieves branches from Gitea. It specifies the resource (Gitea branches) and the action (GET/retrieve). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_gitea_getGiteaRepositories' or 'dokploy_github_getGithubBranches', which would require mentioning it's specifically for Gitea repositories versus other Git providers.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured Gitea provider), exclusions (e.g., not for other Git providers like GitHub), or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'dokploy_gitea_getGiteaRepositories'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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