Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what's in annotations - no information about pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no results are found. With good annotations, the baseline is met but no additional value is added.

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 technically concise but poorly structured. It front-loads the tool name in brackets but wastes space on redundant formatting. The parameter listing is bulleted but provides minimal value. While not verbose, the structure doesn't effectively communicate essential information - it's more of a technical specification than a helpful description.

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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, whether it supports pagination (implied by limit/offset but not explained), or error conditions. The annotations provide safety information but the functional context is missing, making it difficult for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description simply lists parameter names and types without explaining what they do, how they interact, or providing examples. 'q' versus 'name' and 'description' parameters are particularly confusing without explanation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('project.search') without explaining what it actually does. It provides a verb ('search') and resource ('project') but lacks specificity about what kind of projects or what search functionality is offered. This is borderline tautological since it essentially repeats the name/title without meaningful elaboration.

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 sibling tools list includes 'dokploy_project_all' and 'dokploy_project_one', which are clearly related project tools, but the description doesn't differentiate this search tool from those list or get operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to siblings.

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