Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which already indicate this is a safe read operation that may have side effects and accepts varied inputs. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations - it implies validation occurs but doesn't describe what validation entails, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits/auth requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes characters on redundant information (tool name, HTTP method) without providing meaningful content. A single bracketed term and method specification don't constitute helpful conciseness when the purpose remains unclear.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what validation means, what gets returned (valid/invalid status, license details, error messages?), or how this differs from 'haveValidLicenseKey'. With annotations covering safety but no output schema, the description should explain the validation behavior and results.

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. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter documentation burden. The description's mention of '[licenseKey]' might imply a parameter, but the schema confirms none exist.

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.validate (POST)' is tautological - it restates the tool name and adds HTTP method without explaining what validation entails. It doesn't specify what resource is being validated (a license key), what validation means (checking validity, expiration, features?), or distinguish from sibling license tools like 'activate', 'deactivate', or 'haveValidLicenseKey'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling license tools (activate, deactivate, haveValidLicenseKey, getEnterpriseSettings, updateEnterpriseSettings) but the description provides no context about when validation is appropriate versus checking validity status or activating/deactivating licenses.

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