Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations cover (e.g., no rate limits, auth needs, or return format). However, it doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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 brief ('[gitlab] gitlab.gitlabProviders (GET)'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to convey purpose or usage, making it ineffective despite its short length.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, good annotations), the description is incomplete because it lacks a clear purpose and usage guidelines. While annotations cover safety, the description doesn't explain what the tool returns or its role in the system, leaving gaps for the agent.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, but that's acceptable given the absence of parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 '[gitlab] gitlab.gitlabProviders (GET)' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds only the HTTP method. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does (e.g., list GitLab providers, retrieve configuration, etc.). While it mentions 'gitlabProviders', it doesn't specify the action or purpose beyond the name.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or related tools (like other provider tools such as dokploy_bitbucket_bitbucketProviders or dokploy_github_githubProviders). This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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