Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description's burden is lower. It adds minimal behavioral context by specifying the HTTP method (GET) and listing parameters, but doesn't describe output format, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, followed by a clear parameter list. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the formatting as a code block might reduce readability. Every element serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, read-only operation with good annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no schema provided), doesn't explain the relationship to other mount tools, and omits error cases. For a list operation, more context on result structure would be helpful.

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 both parameters with types and requirements, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain what 'serviceId' or 'serviceType' represent in context, or how they affect the results. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, this provides basic compensation.

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 lists mounts by service ID, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling mount tools like 'dokploy_mounts_allNamedByApplicationId' or 'dokploy_mounts_one', leaving the scope and relationship ambiguous. The description is functional but lacks sibling distinction.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. Usage is implied through parameter requirements but not explicitly stated.

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