Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description doesn't add any behavioral context beyond these annotations—it doesn't explain what 'testConnection' entails (e.g., network call, authentication check), potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but adds minimal value.

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 and structured with a clear header and parameter list, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—the content is sparse, but what's present is efficiently formatted without wasted words. It could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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 purpose (testing a connection), no output schema, and annotations that don't fully explain behavior, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the test validates, what the return value indicates (e.g., success/failure, error messages), and how parameters affect the test. For a tool that likely involves external system interaction, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use 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 description must compensate. It lists parameters 'giteaId' and 'organizationName' as optional but provides no semantic meaning—what these parameters represent, how they relate to testing a connection, or what happens if omitted. Without this, the agent cannot understand when or how to use these parameters effectively, leaving significant gaps despite the low parameter count.

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.testConnection (POST)' restates the tool name and HTTP method but doesn't explain what 'testConnection' actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being tested (e.g., Gitea provider configuration), what 'test' means (e.g., validate connectivity/credentials), or what the outcome indicates. This is essentially a tautology that adds little beyond the name itself.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'dokploy_gitea_create', 'dokploy_gitea_update', and other provider test tools (e.g., 'dokploy_bitbucket_testConnection'), but the description doesn't differentiate this tool's specific use case or mention prerequisites like needing an existing Gitea provider configuration. Usage is implied only by the name 'testConnection'.

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