Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'GET' - it doesn't specify what data is returned, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. With good annotation coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds little value beyond what annotations already declare.

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 concise but borders on under-specification. The two-line format with 'Parameters:' section is structured, but the content is insufficient. While there's no wasted text, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity - every sentence should earn its place, but here the sentences don't provide enough value.

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 (retrieving MariaDB information by ID), the description is incomplete. There's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what data is returned. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description fails to provide necessary context about the tool's function, parameter meaning, or relationship to sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns database configuration or status information, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'mariadbId' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides no additional semantic information about this parameter - what format it expects, where to obtain valid IDs, or what constitutes a valid MariaDB identifier. With 1 parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 '[mariadb] mariadb.one (GET)' which is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name with minimal clarification. It doesn't specify what action is performed (retrieve details? fetch configuration?) or what resource is accessed. While 'GET' implies a read operation, the purpose remains vague compared to the specificity needed for effective tool selection.

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. With multiple sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_search', 'dokploy_mariadb_create', and 'dokploy_mariadb_update', there's no indication whether this tool retrieves a single MariaDB instance by ID, gets configuration details, or serves some other specific purpose that differs from search operations. The agent receives no usage context.

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