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), which already tell the agent this is a safe, non-destructive, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by mentioning '(GET)' which aligns with readOnlyHint, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like what kind of data is returned, error conditions, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

While brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. The first line '[patch] patch.byEntityId (GET)' is redundant with the tool name, and the parameter listing adds minimal value. The structure lacks a clear purpose statement upfront, making it inefficient for quick understanding. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the content doesn't justify its existence.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and operates in a complex system with many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it differs from other patch tools, or provide necessary context for proper use. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description fails to address the tool's role in the broader dokploy ecosystem.

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, the description must compensate but fails completely. It merely lists parameter names and types ('id (string, required), type (enum: application, compose, required)') without explaining what these parameters mean, what 'id' refers to, what 'type' selection affects, or how they relate to the tool's function. This provides no semantic value beyond what the bare schema already shows.

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 states '[patch] patch.byEntityId (GET)' which is tautological - it essentially repeats the tool name with minimal clarification. It doesn't specify what 'patch' means in this context (retrieve patch information? apply a patch?) or what 'byEntityId' operation actually performs. While it mentions GET, the purpose remains vague compared to the specificity needed for effective tool selection.

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 numerous sibling tools in the dokploy_patch_* category (like dokploy_patch_one, dokploy_patch_create, dokploy_patch_update), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate to use. The description lacks any contextual usage information.

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