Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context by specifying it's a GET operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or error handling. 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 and structured with a parameter list, but includes redundant information like '[github]' and '(GET)' that doesn't add value. It's front-loaded with the tool name but could be more efficient by integrating parameter details into a cohesive sentence. No wasted sentences, but room for improvement.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, expected output (e.g., list of branch names with metadata), error conditions, and integration context (e.g., how githubId relates to configured providers).

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 documentation. The description lists parameters (repo, owner, githubId) with types and required status, adding basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain what these parameters mean (e.g., owner is the GitHub username/organization, githubId might be a provider ID), their format, or examples, leaving significant gaps.

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 GitHub branches, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like dokploy_github_getGithubRepositories or dokploy_bitbucket_getBitbucketBranches, nor does it specify scope (e.g., all branches, default branch only). The inclusion of '[github] github.getGithubBranches (GET)' is redundant 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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a GitHub provider configured), compare it to similar tools for other Git providers (e.g., dokploy_gitea_getGiteaBranches), or indicate typical use cases (e.g., before deployment).

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