Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true) already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—it doesn't explain what 'githubProviders' entails, potential side effects, or system constraints. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by existing structured data.

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?

While concise, the description is under-specified—it consists of a single bracketed phrase that fails to convey meaningful information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; here, the brevity results in a lack of useful content, making it inefficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's function.

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 lacks a clear purpose, usage context, and any explanation of what 'githubProviders' refers to (e.g., configured GitHub integrations in Dokploy). Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return type or data structure, but it does not. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it appropriately avoids unnecessary details. A baseline score of 4 is applied as the description does not introduce confusion or redundancy regarding parameters.

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 '[github] github.githubProviders (GET)' is tautological—it restates the tool name and adds only the HTTP method. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to clarify what the tool actually does (e.g., list, retrieve, or manage GitHub providers). Compared to siblings like 'dokploy_github_getGithubBranches', which clearly indicates its purpose, this description provides minimal actionable information.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or related tools (e.g., other provider tools like 'dokploy_bitbucket_bitbucketProviders'). Without any usage instructions, an AI agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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