Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations provide comprehensive behavioral information (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, the description adds minimal value beyond annotations - it only indicates this is a GET operation, which is already implied by readOnlyHint. It doesn't provide any additional context about what 'allForPermissions' means behaviorally, such as what data is returned or how permissions are structured.

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?

While the description is technically concise (one short phrase), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single bracketed phrase '[project] project.allForPermissions (GET)' doesn't provide meaningful information - it's essentially just repeating the tool name with formatting. This isn't true conciseness but rather insufficient 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 purpose (apparently related to projects and permissions), the description is inadequate. With no output schema and annotations that only cover safety/behavioral aspects, the description should explain what this tool returns and what 'allForPermissions' means. The current description leaves the agent guessing about the tool's actual function and output format.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. With no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing missing.

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.allForPermissions (GET)' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method, but it doesn't explain what the tool actually does. It mentions 'project' and 'allForPermissions' but doesn't specify what 'allForPermissions' means - whether it lists projects for permission purposes, retrieves all permissions for projects, or something else. This is vague and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_project_all'.

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's no mention of when this tool should be used, when it shouldn't be used, or what alternatives exist among the many sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify how this differs from 'dokploy_project_all' or 'dokploy_user_getPermissions' which might be related tools.

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