Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description's burden is lower. However, it adds minimal context beyond the parameter list—no details on pagination behavior, error conditions, or what 'search' entails (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides little extra value.

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 brief but poorly structured—it starts with redundant API notation ('[postgres] postgres.search (GET)') and a parameter list that duplicates the schema. While not verbose, it wastes space on unhelpful formatting instead of providing meaningful content.

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's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema) and low schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the search scope, result format, or how parameters interact. Annotations help with safety, but the description leaves critical gaps for effective tool use.

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 merely lists parameter names without explaining their meanings (e.g., what 'q' searches, how 'limit' and 'offset' work for pagination). This adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage 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 essentially restates the tool name ('postgres.search') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb+resource statement like 'Search for PostgreSQL databases' and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_postgres_one' or 'dokploy_postgres_create'.

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 any prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_postgres_one' for retrieving a single database). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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