Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'GET' which aligns with readOnlyHint, but doesn't provide additional context about what 'mounts.one' returns, error conditions, or any system-specific behaviors. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description adds little beyond what annotations already declare.

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 extremely concise - just two lines showing the endpoint and parameter. While this avoids waste, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The structure is clear (endpoint then parameter list), but the content is so minimal that it fails to provide necessary context. It's front-loaded with the endpoint, but that endpoint name itself isn't self-explanatory.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (mount details? status?), doesn't provide context about mounts in the Dokploy system, and doesn't differentiate this from other mount operations. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description fails to provide the operational context needed to use this tool effectively alongside its many siblings.

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 'mountId (string, required)' which matches the schema, but provides no semantic context - what a mountId is, where to find it, format expectations, or examples. The description doesn't explain what the parameter represents or how it's used in the operation, leaving significant gaps despite the single parameter.

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 '[mounts] mounts.one (GET)' is tautological - it essentially repeats the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve details of a specific mount). While it mentions 'mounts' which hints at the resource, it lacks a clear verb-action combination that distinguishes it from sibling mount tools like dokploy_mounts_allNamedByApplicationId or dokploy_mounts_listByServiceId.

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 what differentiates this 'one' operation from other mount-related tools in the sibling list, nor does it specify any prerequisites, context requirements, or typical use cases. The agent receives no usage direction beyond the minimal parameter information.

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