Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal context by noting it's a GET operation, which aligns with read-only behavior but doesn't provide additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. Since annotations handle the core safety profile, the description's limited addition justifies 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 and structured with a clear header ('[github] github.getGithubRepositories (GET)') and a parameters section. It avoids unnecessary words, but the lack of explanatory content for the parameter reduces its effectiveness. Overall, it's efficiently formatted but under-specified.

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 no output schema and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of repositories, error formats) or provide context on the 'githubId' parameter. Annotations help with behavioral aspects, but the description leaves too many gaps 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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description only lists 'githubId' as a required string without explaining its meaning (e.g., GitHub username, organization ID, or provider identifier). 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 states the tool retrieves GitHub repositories ('getGithubRepositories') and mentions it's a GET operation, which clarifies the action. However, it doesn't specify what 'githubId' refers to (e.g., a user, organization, or token) or the scope of repositories returned (e.g., all, public only, owned by the ID). This leaves the purpose somewhat vague compared to what a fully clear description would provide.

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 sibling tools like 'dokploy_github_getGithubBranches' or 'dokploy_bitbucket_getBitbucketRepositories', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured GitHub provider). Without this, an agent lacks context for tool selection.

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