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. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this, such as what 'testConnection' entails (e.g., network check, auth validation), expected outcomes, or error handling. With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds minimal value but doesn't contradict them.

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 but inefficiently structured. It includes redundant information like '(POST)' and a parameter list that adds little value. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on formatting rather than informative content.

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 complexity (a connection-testing operation with one parameter), the description is incomplete. No output schema exists, and the description doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status, error details). With annotations providing some hints but no output details, the description leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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%, and the description only lists 'githubId (string, required)' without explaining what a githubId is (e.g., an identifier for a GitHub provider configuration, a user ID, or something else). It fails to add meaningful context beyond the schema's type and requirement, 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 '[github] github.testConnection (POST)' restates the tool name and HTTP method but doesn't specify what 'testConnection' means. It doesn't clarify whether this tests GitHub API connectivity, authentication, or something else. While it mentions 'github' context, the purpose remains vague compared to 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 on when to use this tool is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured GitHub provider), alternatives (e.g., other testConnection tools for different providers like bitbucket_testConnection), or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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