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, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'GET', which aligns with annotations but doesn't add meaningful details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'gitlab.one' refers to. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 very concise with two lines, front-loading the tool context ('[gitlab] gitlab.one (GET)') and listing the parameter. There's no wasted text, but it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 has no output schema and annotations cover basic safety, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader GitLab context. For a tool with 1 parameter and 0% schema coverage, more explanation is needed to be fully helpful.

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%, so the schema only defines 'gitlabId' as a required string with minLength 1. The description lists the parameter but adds no semantics—it doesn't explain what 'gitlabId' represents, its format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter poorly understood.

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 '[gitlab] gitlab.one (GET)' which partially indicates it's a GET operation related to GitLab, but it's vague about what specific resource or action it performs. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'dokploy_gitlab_create' or 'dokploy_gitlab_update' beyond implying it's a read operation. The description is more of a label 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_gitlab_getGitlabRepositories' or 'dokploy_gitlab_gitlabProviders'). The agent must infer usage from the name and annotations alone.

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