Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations clearly indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds minimal value by noting it's a 'GET' request, which aligns with readOnlyHint=true, but doesn't provide additional context like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset), error handling, or authentication requirements. Since annotations handle the safety profile adequately, the description's limited contribution warrants a baseline score.

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 concise but poorly structured. It front-loads minimal information ('[mariadb] mariadb.search (GET)') followed by a parameter list that duplicates the schema without added value. While not verbose, the structure doesn't prioritize helpful context, and the parameter list feels like clutter rather than meaningful elaboration.

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 (8 optional parameters, no output schema, and schema coverage of 0%), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of MariaDB resources), how results are formatted, or any dependencies. With annotations covering basic behavior but no output schema, the description should provide more context to guide effective use, which it fails to do.

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 none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description lists parameter names but provides no semantic context—e.g., what 'q' searches for, how 'name' or 'appName' filter results, or what 'projectId' and 'environmentId' refer to. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context ('[mariadb] mariadb.search (GET)'). It doesn't specify what resource is being searched (e.g., MariaDB databases, instances, or configurations) or what the search operation actually does. While it mentions 'GET' indicating a read operation, this doesn't meaningfully clarify the purpose beyond what's implied by 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. Given the sibling tools list includes other search tools (e.g., dokploy_mariadb_one for fetching a single item, dokploy_application_search for applications), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate. The absence of any usage context leaves the agent to guess based on parameter names alone.

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