Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), and the description does not contradict them—it includes '(GET)', which aligns with read-only behavior. The description adds minimal context (the 'mongo' prefix hints at MongoDB resources), but it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 with '[mongo] mongo.search (GET)' but then includes a parameter list that duplicates the schema without added value. The parameter section is redundant and could be omitted for better clarity. While brief, it wastes space on schema repetition instead of providing useful guidance.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool searches (e.g., MongoDB instances, databases), how parameters interact, what the return values are, or any error conditions. For a search tool with many optional filters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 parameters (q, name, appName, etc.) but only as a bulleted list without explaining their semantics, relationships, or usage (e.g., 'q' for general search vs. specific filters). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap effectively.

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.search (GET)' is tautological—it restates the tool name and adds minimal context. It lacks a clear verb-resource statement (e.g., 'Search MongoDB instances' or 'Filter MongoDB databases') and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mongo_one' or 'dokploy_mongo_update'. The purpose is vague, as it only hints at searching without specifying what is being searched.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_mongo_one' for single instances or 'dokploy_mongo_update' for modifications). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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