Dokploy MCP Server

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

The 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 specifying it's a GET operation, but doesn't provide any additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover. 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?

The description is extremely concise - just two lines. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure with 'Parameters:' heading is clear, but the content lacks substance. It's not verbose, but it's also not sufficiently informative.

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 the Dokploy system with many sibling tools, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'patch' is in this context, what data is returned, or how this tool fits into the broader patch management workflow. The annotations help, but the description itself leaves too many contextual gaps.

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 description lists 'patchId (string, required)' but provides no semantic context about what a patchId is, what format it should have, or where to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning and purpose, but it merely repeats the parameter name without adding meaningful semantics.

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.one (GET)' which is tautological - it essentially repeats the tool name with a method. It doesn't explain what 'patch.one' refers to or what this GET operation actually retrieves. While it mentions 'GET', it doesn't specify what resource is being accessed or what the tool accomplishes 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. There are multiple sibling tools with 'patch' in their names (dokploy_patch_byEntityId, dokploy_patch_create, dokploy_patch_delete, etc.), but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or explain when this specific 'patch.one' operation is appropriate versus other patch-related operations.

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