Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations provide comprehensive behavioral information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description's burden is lower. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what's already in annotations - no information about what 'valid' means, what format the response takes, or any edge cases. With good annotations but no description enhancement, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single line '[licenseKey] licenseKey.haveValidLicenseKey (GET)' wastes space on redundant information (repeating the tool name) while failing to convey meaningful purpose or usage. This isn't true conciseness - it's inadequate specification.

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 apparent purpose (checking license validity), the description is incomplete. With no output schema and minimal description, an agent wouldn't know what format the response takes (boolean, object, status code), what 'valid' means in this context, or how to interpret results. The annotations help with safety profile, but the functional understanding remains inadequate.

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 parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters exist. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 even without parameter details in the description.

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.haveValidLicenseKey (GET)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does - whether it checks license validity, returns license status, or performs some other operation. The purpose remains unclear beyond the literal name repetition.

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. Given the sibling tools include dokploy_licenseKey_activate, dokploy_licenseKey_deactivate, dokploy_licenseKey_getEnterpriseSettings, dokploy_licenseKey_updateEnterpriseSettings, and dokploy_licenseKey_validate, there are clear alternatives but no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate versus those others.

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