Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'GET', which aligns with read-only behavior, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists, so the score reflects moderate added context.

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 includes a header-like '[redirects] redirects.one (GET)' and a parameter list, but the content is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While not verbose, it lacks clarity and front-loading of key information, making it less effective.

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 (one parameter) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks output schema details, does not explain the return value or behavior, and fails to provide necessary context for proper use. Annotations cover safety but not operational specifics, leaving gaps in understanding.

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%, and the description only lists 'redirectId (string, required)' without explaining what a redirectId is, its format, or where to obtain it. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the lack of semantic information, leaving the parameter meaning unclear.

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 'redirects.one (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'dokploy_redirects_one' without clarifying what it actually does. It mentions 'redirects' but doesn't specify the action (e.g., retrieve, fetch, get) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_redirects_create', 'dokploy_redirects_delete', and 'dokploy_redirects_update'. The purpose remains 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it refer to sibling tools for comparison. Without this information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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