Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations provide comprehensive behavioral information (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world). The description adds minimal value by specifying it's a GET operation, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. While it doesn't add significant context beyond annotations, it doesn't contradict them either, and the annotations themselves are quite informative.

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 - arguably too concise. While it wastes no words, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The two-line structure (method + parameter list) is clear but lacks substantive content. Every sentence should earn its place, and here the content is insufficient rather than efficiently packed.

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 complexity of organization management systems and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description doesn't explain what information is returned about an organization, what authentication might be required, or how this fits into the broader organizational workflow. For a tool that presumably retrieves specific organization data, more context is needed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single required parameter 'organizationId', the description provides no additional semantic information about this parameter. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid organization ID, where to find it, or what format it should be in. The description merely lists the parameter name without any meaningful context.

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 is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name ('organization.one') and adds the HTTP method (GET). It doesn't specify what the tool actually does - whether it retrieves organization details, settings, members, or something else. While it mentions 'organization' as the resource, the purpose remains vague beyond being a GET operation on an organization.

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. With many sibling tools like 'dokploy_organization_all', 'dokploy_organization_active', 'dokploy_organization_update', and 'dokploy_organization_delete', there's no indication of when this specific 'one' operation is appropriate versus listing all organizations or performing other organization-related actions.

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