Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context by specifying it's a GET operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, error conditions, or rate limits. 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and could be more polished. It efficiently states the parameter without unnecessary details, though it lacks a clear introductory sentence.

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 has one parameter, rich annotations, but no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameter but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how it fits into the broader context of mount management. Adequate for a simple read tool but with gaps.

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%, but the description lists 'applicationId' as a required string parameter, matching the schema. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples, valid IDs, or relationship to other tools). With one parameter and no schema descriptions, baseline 3 is appropriate as it minimally compensates.

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 the tool retrieves mounts for an application ID, but it's vague about what 'mounts' are (e.g., storage volumes, configurations) and doesn't specify the return format. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'dokploy_mounts_listByServiceId' by using 'applicationId', but doesn't explain how it differs from other mount-related tools like 'dokploy_mounts_one' or 'dokploy_mounts_create'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'applicationId' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., the application must exist) or compare it to siblings like 'dokploy_mounts_listByServiceId' for service-level mounts. Usage is implied by the parameter name only.

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