Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), which already inform the agent that this is a safe, non-destructive, idempotent read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations (none explicitly), but since annotations cover key traits well, the bar is lower. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on redundant information (repeating the tool name and HTTP method) without adding value. However, it's structured with a parameter list, which is somewhat organized, but the content is insufficient.

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 cover safety but not functional details, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context like what the tool returns, how the giteaId is used, or its role within the Gitea provider management system, making it inadequate for effective 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists 'giteaId (string, required)' but adds no semantic meaning (e.g., what a giteaId is, where to find it, format examples). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.

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.one (GET)') without specifying what the tool actually does. It doesn't provide a clear verb+resource combination (e.g., 'retrieve details about a Gitea provider' or 'get information about a specific Gitea instance'). While it mentions 'gitea' contextually, it's essentially tautological with the name/title.

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. Given the sibling tools include 'dokploy_gitea_giteaProviders' (likely for listing multiple providers) and 'dokploy_gitea_getGiteaRepositories' (for repositories), the description offers no differentiation or context for selecting this specific tool.

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