Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide strong hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context by specifying it's a GET operation, which aligns with readOnlyHint=true. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like what happens if the redisId doesn't exist, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations imply.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('[redis] redis.one (GET)'), but the parameter listing is redundant with the schema and lacks explanatory value. It's concise but under-specified, as more context could improve clarity without adding unnecessary length.

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 has no output schema, annotations cover safety but not behavioral details, and schema coverage is 0%, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., Redis instance details, status), error conditions, or how it fits into the broader context of Redis management, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameter 'redisId' but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what constitutes a valid redisId, format, or where to find it). This leaves the parameter poorly understood despite the description attempting to document it.

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 states it's a GET operation for 'redis.one', which implies retrieving a specific Redis resource. However, it doesn't specify what exactly is retrieved (e.g., configuration, status, details) or how it differs from other Redis-related tools like 'dokploy_redis_search' or 'dokploy_redis_update'. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity and sibling differentiation.

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 are multiple Redis-related tools (e.g., dokploy_redis_search, dokploy_redis_update) and other 'one' tools (e.g., dokploy_ai_one, dokploy_application_one), but no indication of when this specific GET operation is appropriate or what prerequisites might be required.

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