Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation with open-world semantics. The description adds minimal value by specifying '(GET)', which aligns with read-only behavior but doesn't contradict annotations. However, it lacks additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned.

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 extremely concise but under-specified, not efficiently conveying purpose. It consists of a single phrase that repeats the name and title, failing to provide meaningful information. While brief, it doesn't earn its place by adding value, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.

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, rich annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'giteaProviders' are, what data is returned, or how this tool fits into the broader context of Gitea or sibling tools. With no output schema, the description should compensate by clarifying the return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in understanding.

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, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't add any parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema handles all parameter semantics effectively.

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 '[gitea] gitea.giteaProviders (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with the addition of '(GET)'. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list, retrieve, or fetch Gitea providers). While it mentions 'giteaProviders', it lacks a clear verb and specific action, making the purpose vague.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and given the many sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_gitea_getGiteaRepositories, dokploy_gitea_one), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected.

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