Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation that may return partial data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this (e.g., what 'active' means, response format, or error conditions). However, since annotations cover key safety aspects, the bar is lower, and the description does not contradict them, warranting a baseline score for minimal added value.

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 brief ('[organization] organization.active (GET)'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to convey meaningful information in its single phrase, making it ineffective despite its short length. A concise description should be informative, not minimalistic to the point of being unhelpful.

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 complexity (implied by the 'organization' context and sibling tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean status, organization details, or a list), leaving the agent guessing. While annotations provide safety hints, the description lacks essential operational context, making it inadequate for informed use.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to compensate, and a baseline score of 4 is justified as it avoids misleading or redundant information.

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 '[organization] organization.active (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with an HTTP method. It does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., check if an organization is active, retrieve active organization status, or list active organizations). While it includes a verb ('GET'), it lacks a clear resource or action, making the purpose vague and indistinguishable from sibling tools like 'dokploy_organization_all' or 'dokploy_organization_one'.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_organization_all' for listing all organizations or 'dokploy_organization_one' for retrieving a specific organization). Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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