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, non-destructive, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by implying it's a GET request, but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specifically happens when invoked. 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 under-specified rather than concise. It includes unnecessary formatting like brackets and parentheses ('[postgres] postgres.one (GET)') without adding clarity. The parameter listing is minimal but lacks explanation. The structure is not front-loaded with purpose, making it inefficient for an agent to parse.

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 annotations cover basic safety, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., details of a PostgreSQL instance), any prerequisites, or error conditions. For a tool that likely retrieves specific PostgreSQL data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context and 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 the schema provides no descriptions for the single parameter 'postgresId'. The description lists the parameter but adds no semantic meaning beyond its name (e.g., what a postgresId is, where to find it, format expectations). Since there's only one parameter and schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates by at least naming it, but doesn't provide sufficient context for effective use.

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 and HTTP method ('postgres.one (GET)') without specifying what the tool actually does. It mentions 'postgres' but doesn't indicate whether this retrieves, creates, updates, or performs another action on a PostgreSQL resource. The description is tautological and lacks a clear verb+resource statement.

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. Given the sibling tools include multiple 'postgres_' tools (create, delete, deploy, move, rebuild, etc.), there is no indication of when this specific 'one' tool should be selected over others like 'dokploy_postgres_search' or 'dokploy_postgres_update'.

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