Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, but it also adds no behavioral context beyond what's in the annotations—no information about what enterprise settings include, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 but not effectively concise—it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes characters on redundant information (brackets, HTTP method) without adding value, failing to front-load useful content. A single sentence could have conveyed purpose more clearly.

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 complexity (likely retrieving configuration settings) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what enterprise settings are, what format they're returned in, or any dependencies. With annotations covering safety but no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value.

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 the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies no parameters are needed, aligning with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 '[licenseKey] licenseKey.getEnterpriseSettings (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and HTTP method without specifying what the tool actually does. It mentions 'getEnterpriseSettings' but doesn't explain what enterprise settings are or what resource this operates on, failing to provide meaningful 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. There are sibling tools like 'dokploy_licenseKey_updateEnterpriseSettings' that clearly serve a different purpose (update vs get), but the description doesn't mention this distinction or any prerequisites, leaving 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.