Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal behavioral context - it mentions it's a GET operation (implied read-only) and lists parameters, but doesn't describe what happens when the file doesn't exist, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. With good annotations, this earns a baseline 3 for providing the HTTP method 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 - just the HTTP method and parameter listing. It's front-loaded with the most important information (patch.readRepoFile GET). While perhaps too minimal, every element serves a purpose with zero wasted words. The structure is clear though basic.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety aspects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (file content? metadata?), what happens on errors, or provide any domain context about 'patch' repositories. For a file-reading tool in a complex deployment system, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand proper usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description lists parameter names and types but provides no semantic meaning: what 'id' refers to (repository ID? patch ID?), what 'type' of 'application' or 'compose' means, or what 'filePath' represents. For 3 undocumented parameters, this minimal listing doesn't adequately compensate for the schema gap.

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 the tool reads a file from a repository, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what kind of repository (patch repository) or provide any context about what 'patch' refers to in this system. The description is functional but lacks domain-specific clarity that would help distinguish it from other file-reading tools.

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 many sibling tools (like dokploy_patch_readRepoDirectories, dokploy_patch_one, dokploy_application_readAppMonitoring) that might be related, but no indication is given about when this specific file-reading tool is appropriate versus other read operations in the system.

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