Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, covering key safety and idempotency traits. The description adds minimal behavioral context (just 'GET'), but doesn't contradict annotations. However, it fails to describe important behaviors like pagination (implied by limit/offset but not explained), response format, or error conditions, leaving gaps despite good annotation coverage.

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 concise but poorly structured. It front-loads minimal information ('[redis] redis.search (GET)') and then lists parameters without integration into explanatory text. While not verbose, the structure doesn't effectively communicate purpose or usage, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover safety/idempotency, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of Redis instances with fields), how pagination works with limit/offset, or error handling. For a search tool with many filtering options, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly.

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 merely lists parameter names without explaining their purpose, relationships, or how they affect the search. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'q' is a general query string, how 'name', 'appName', 'description' filter results, or what 'projectId' and 'environmentId' scope. With 8 parameters, this lack of semantic explanation is a significant gap.

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 is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'redis.search' with 'GET' in parentheses. It doesn't specify what resource is being searched (Redis instances? configurations? data?), nor what 'search' means in this context. While it mentions 'redis' in brackets, this adds minimal clarity beyond the name itself.

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. With many sibling tools like 'dokploy_redis_one' (likely for retrieving a single Redis instance) and other search tools (e.g., 'dokploy_application_search'), there's no indication of when this specific Redis search is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what distinguishes it from other search operations in the system.

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