Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide strong behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal value by indicating it's a GET operation, which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose additional traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'allInvitations' encompasses (e.g., pending vs. all). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description meets a baseline but lacks enriching context.

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, not efficiently informative. It consists of a single bracketed phrase that repeats the name and adds '(GET)', failing to front-load actionable information. While brief, it lacks substance, making it inefficient for agent understanding rather than a model of clarity.

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, annotations provided, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'allInvitations' returns (e.g., list structure, invitation details), any organizational scope, or potential side effects. While annotations cover basic safety, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively without guessing.

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% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 3 is set for high schema coverage, but the absence of parameters elevates the score as there is nothing to compensate for, making the description adequate in this dimension.

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.allInvitations (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with minimal added context. It specifies the HTTP method (GET) but lacks a clear, specific verb-resource statement explaining what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Retrieve all pending invitations for an organization'). This fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_organization_inviteMember' or 'dokploy_organization_removeInvitation' beyond the name.

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 prerequisites (e.g., organization context), exclusions, or related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_user_getInvitations' for user-specific invitations). Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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