Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), indicating this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'GET', which aligns with read-only behavior, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what 'openWorldHint' implies (e.g., may return varying data). With annotations covering core safety, the description adds limited value beyond 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 and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it wastes space by repeating the name and listing parameters without explanation. The parameter list adds no value beyond the schema, making the description inefficient. However, it avoids excessive verbosity, keeping to essential but unhelpful elements.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety but not operational details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of branch names/objects), how parameters interact (e.g., 'id' vs 'gitlabId'), or error conditions. For a read operation with undocumented parameters, more context is needed 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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description lists parameters ('id', 'owner', 'repo', 'gitlabId') but does not explain their semantics (e.g., 'owner' is the GitLab username/group, 'repo' is the repository name, 'gitlabId' might be a project ID). It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameters largely meaningless to an agent.

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 restates the tool name ('gitlab.getGitlabBranches') and adds the HTTP method 'GET', but does not clearly articulate what the tool does. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination (e.g., 'retrieve branches from a GitLab repository') and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'dokploy_gitlab_getGitlabRepositories' or other Git provider branch tools (e.g., 'dokploy_github_getGithubBranches'). This is closer to a tautology than a clear purpose statement.

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 does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_gitlab_getGitlabRepositories' for repositories, or other Git provider branch tools), nor does it specify prerequisites, context (e.g., after setting up a GitLab provider), or any exclusions. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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