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 agent knows this is a safe, repeatable query operation. The description adds minimal value beyond the GET method indication, but doesn't contradict annotations. No additional behavioral context like pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements is provided.

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 but inefficiently structured. It wastes space repeating the tool name and HTTP method, then provides a bare parameter list without meaningful explanations. While concise in length, it fails to deliver essential information that would help an agent understand and use the tool effectively.

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?

For a search tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what type of MySQL resources are being searched, what the return format looks like, or how the search parameters interact. The annotations provide safety information, but the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter and output documentation.

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 carries full burden for parameter documentation. While it lists all 8 parameters by name, it provides no semantic information about what each parameter does, their relationships, or how they affect search results. For example, it doesn't explain whether 'q' is a general search term or how 'projectId' and 'environmentId' filter results.

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 restates the tool name as '[mysql] mysql.search (GET)' without explaining what it searches for or returns. It lists parameters but doesn't state the purpose beyond the tautological 'search'. The name suggests searching MySQL resources, but the description doesn't clarify what type of MySQL entities are 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like dokploy_mysql_one, dokploy_mysql_create, and dokploy_mysql_update, the description doesn't explain when search is appropriate versus retrieving a single record or performing other operations. The parameter list implies filtering capabilities but offers no usage context.

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