Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable read operation with open-ended results. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'GET', which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. No contradiction exists, but the description is redundant given the annotations.

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 overly concise to the point of being cryptic. It consists of a single bracketed phrase with no full sentences, failing to communicate purpose effectively. While brevity can be good, this lacks structure and clarity, making it difficult for an agent to understand without external context.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'registry.all' retrieves, the scope of results, or any limitations. While annotations provide safety and idempotency, the description fails to add meaningful context, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's function and output.

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 absence of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as no parameters exist, and the schema adequately covers this.

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 '[registry] registry.all (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name with minimal context. It mentions 'registry' and 'all' but doesn't specify what it retrieves (e.g., list of registries, registry entries, or configurations). While it implies a GET operation, it lacks a clear verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_registry_one' or 'dokploy_registry_create'.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_registry_one' for a single registry or 'dokploy_registry_create' for creating registries). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate scenarios for invocation.

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