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 indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description only adds that it's a POST operation (implied creation). It doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it gets a baseline score for adding some minimal context.

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 technically concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on formatting (brackets, parentheses) and redundant information (listing all parameters that are already in the schema). The structure is poor - it starts with redundant '[gitlab] gitlab.create (POST)' instead of a clear purpose statement. However, it's not excessively verbose.

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 complexity (9 parameters, creation operation), lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what GitLab entity is created, prerequisites, or error conditions. For a creation tool with many parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters (3 required), the description provides only a bare list of parameter names and types without any semantic meaning. It doesn't explain what 'authId', 'gitlabUrl', 'gitlabInternalUrl', or other parameters represent, their expected formats, or relationships between them. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name ('gitlab.create') without explaining what it actually creates. It provides no meaningful verb+resource combination or specific purpose statement. While it mentions 'POST' which implies a creation operation, it doesn't specify what GitLab entity is being created (provider configuration, integration, etc.).

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple GitLab-related sibling tools (dokploy_gitlab_gitlabProviders, dokploy_gitlab_update, dokploy_gitlab_testConnection, etc.), but the description offers no differentiation or context about when this specific creation tool is appropriate.

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