Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'GET', which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'mongo.one' refers to (e.g., a MongoDB instance). With annotations doing heavy lifting, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 brief with two lines, but it's not front-loaded with key information. The first line '[mongo] mongo.one (GET)' is cryptic, and the parameter listing is basic. While concise, it lacks clarity and structure that would help an agent quickly understand the tool's function.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, or expected output, leaving significant gaps. For a tool with a single required parameter, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'mongoId (string, required)' but doesn't explain what 'mongoId' represents (e.g., an identifier for a MongoDB resource), its format, or where to obtain it. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and requirement, failing to fully address the coverage 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 '[mongo] mongo.one (GET)' restates the tool name and adds HTTP method, but lacks a clear verb+resource statement. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve a MongoDB instance by ID) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mongo_get' (which doesn't exist in the list) or other 'one' tools. The purpose is vague beyond being a GET operation.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_mongo_search', 'dokploy_mongo_getAll'), there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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