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, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as what the URL represents, any rate limits, or authentication needs. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description doesn't contradict them but adds minimal value, warranting a baseline score.

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 but poorly structured—it includes redundant information (tool name and HTTP method) and a parameter list without explanation. While not verbose, it lacks effective front-loading of useful information, making it inefficient rather than concise.

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 has one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a URL string or object) or the context of use, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 only defines giteaId as a required string. The description lists the parameter but adds no semantics—it doesn't explain what giteaId is (e.g., an identifier for a Gitea provider or instance), its format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 and HTTP method ('[gitea] gitea.getGiteaUrl (GET)'), which is tautological. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does—whether it retrieves a URL for a Gitea instance, configuration, or something else. While it mentions 'Parameters' with giteaId, this doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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 sibling tools list includes other Gitea-related tools (e.g., dokploy_gitea_getGiteaBranches, dokploy_gitea_getGiteaRepositories), but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or specify any context for its use.

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