Dokploy MCP Server

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations clearly indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds only that this is a GET operation, which is consistent with readOnlyHint=true. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral details like what specific GitHub data is retrieved, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format.

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 extremely concise - just two lines with parameter information. While brief, it's not particularly well-structured or front-loaded with the most important information. The '[github] github.one (GET)' format is somewhat cryptic, and the parameter documentation is minimal. It avoids unnecessary verbosity but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 single parameter, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description fails to explain what the tool actually returns (GitHub provider configuration? repository details?), what the githubId parameter means, or how this tool differs from other GitHub tools. For a tool with no output schema, some indication of return values would be helpful.

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 carries full burden for parameter documentation. It only lists 'githubId (string, required)' without explaining what a githubId represents (GitHub user ID, repository ID, organization ID?), what format it expects, or where to obtain it. This leaves the single required parameter poorly defined despite the description attempting to document it.

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 '[github] github.one (GET)' which is a tautology - it essentially repeats the tool name and adds HTTP method information. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does (retrieve GitHub provider information, fetch GitHub repository data, etc.). While it mentions 'github' as a resource, the specific action and purpose remain unclear.

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?

There are absolutely no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus other GitHub-related tools (like dokploy_github_getGithubBranches, dokploy_github_getGithubRepositories, dokploy_github_githubProviders, etc.), nor does it mention any prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The agent receives zero guidance on appropriate usage scenarios.

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