Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation with potentially open-ended results. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination details. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by their presence without adding significant 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 '[project] project.all (GET)' is extremely brief but under-specified rather than concise. It uses minimal words but fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient in communicating the tool's purpose. While it avoids unnecessary elaboration, it sacrifices clarity, so it does not earn a high score for conciseness.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'all' means (e.g., whether it returns a list, the format, or any limitations), which is crucial even for a read-only tool. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it does not, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented because none exist. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate here. Given the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, the score reflects that the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps, as there are none to address.

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 '[project] project.all (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'dokploy_project_all' with minimal formatting. It does not clearly articulate what the tool does beyond implying a GET operation on projects, lacking specificity about what 'all' entails (e.g., listing, retrieving, or enumerating projects). This fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_project_one' or 'dokploy_project_search', leaving the purpose vague.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'dokploy_project_one' for single projects or 'dokploy_project_search' for filtered searches. This absence of usage instructions makes it challenging for an AI agent to determine appropriate application scenarios.

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