Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying it's a GET request, which aligns with annotations but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs 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 operation type and parameter, but it includes redundant formatting like brackets and parentheses that don't add value. It could be more structured, such as separating the purpose from parameter details, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., registry details), potential errors, or how it fits into the broader context of registry management, leaving gaps for an agent to understand its full use.

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 schema only defines registryId as a required string. The description mentions 'registryId' but adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as what it represents (e.g., a unique identifier for a registry), format examples, or where to obtain it. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.

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 on 'registry.one' with a registryId parameter, which clarifies the verb and resource. However, it doesn't specify what 'registry.one' refers to (e.g., retrieving a specific registry's details) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_registry_all' or 'dokploy_registry_update', leaving the purpose somewhat 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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing registryId, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dokploy_registry_all' for listing registries or 'dokploy_registry_update' for modifications.

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