Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, it adds minimal context by specifying it's a GET operation, which implies safe retrieval, but fails to disclose potential behaviors like pagination, error handling, or rate limits that could affect usage.

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, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) that adds noise. The parameter listing is minimal, making it efficient, though it could be structured more clearly without sacrificing 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 (retrieving repositories), lack of output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., list of repositories, metadata) or any constraints, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand the full context of 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, but it only lists 'giteaId' as a required string without explaining its meaning (e.g., an identifier for a Gitea provider instance). This leaves the parameter's purpose unclear, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the basic schema.

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 the tool retrieves Gitea repositories, which is a clear purpose, but it's vague about scope (e.g., all repositories for a Gitea instance vs. filtered). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_gitea_getGiteaBranches' or 'dokploy_github_getGithubRepositories', leaving ambiguity about when to use each.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Gitea ID) or comparisons to sibling tools, such as 'dokploy_gitea_getGiteaBranches' for branches or 'dokploy_github_getGithubRepositories' for GitHub repositories.

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