Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which already inform the agent this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), but doesn't contradict annotations or provide additional behavioral context like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the portId doesn't exist.

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 brief but not appropriately structured. It's just a label and parameter listing without a clear purpose sentence. While concise, it lacks the front-loaded clarity needed for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., port details, status), leaving the agent guessing. For a read operation with one parameter, more context about the return value and parameter meaning 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only lists 'portId (string, required)' without explaining what a portId is, its format, or where to find it. This adds no meaningful semantics beyond what the bare schema already provides (a required string parameter).

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 restates the tool name ('port.one') and verb ('GET') without specifying what resource it retrieves or what 'port' refers to in this context. It's a tautology that doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (like dokploy_port_create, dokploy_port_delete, dokploy_port_update).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use scenarios. Given the sibling tools include create/delete/update operations for ports, this appears to be a read operation, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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