Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a GET operation, but doesn't describe what 'gitlabId' represents, whether this returns all repositories or a filtered subset, or any pagination/rate limiting considerations.

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 showing the tool name and parameter. While this is efficient, it borders on under-specification. The structure is clear but lacks the explanatory content needed for effective tool selection.

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?

For a tool with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no explanation of what 'gitlabId' means, the description is insufficient. While annotations provide safety information, the description fails to explain the tool's purpose in context, what it returns, or how to properly use the single required parameter.

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 the schema provides no documentation about the 'gitlabId' parameter. The description merely lists the parameter name without explaining what it represents (e.g., GitLab instance ID, user ID, project ID), what format it expects, or where to obtain it. This leaves a critical gap in understanding how to use the tool.

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 the tool retrieves GitLab repositories, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'dokploy_gitlab_getGitlabBranches' or 'dokploy_github_getGithubRepositories' - it merely repeats the tool name with minimal context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other repository-fetching tools in the sibling list (like GitHub or Bitbucket equivalents).

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