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, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—it doesn't explain what 'all' entails (e.g., pagination, filtering, or return format). However, it does not contradict the annotations, so the score reflects 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 concise but under-specified—it's a single bracketed phrase that fails to convey meaningful information. While brief, it lacks substance and does not front-load useful details, making it ineffective rather than efficiently concise.

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 (0 parameters, rich annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'all' means (e.g., returns a list of organizations, possibly with details) or address output expectations, and there is no output schema. For a tool that likely returns data, more context on the return value is needed despite the annotations.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add any parameter information, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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.all (GET)' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'dokploy_organization_all' with minor formatting. It does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., list all organizations, retrieve organization details) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_organization_one' or 'dokploy_organization_active'. This provides minimal clarity beyond the name itself.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_organization_one' for a single organization or 'dokploy_organization_active' for active ones). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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