Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what's in the annotations. It doesn't explain what 'testRegistry' entails (e.g., whether it performs a network check, authentication validation, or returns specific results), nor does it mention any side effects, error conditions, or performance considerations. With annotations providing basic hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral details.

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 under-specified—it's essentially a header with a parameter list. While it avoids unnecessary verbosity, it lacks a clear introductory sentence explaining the tool's purpose. The structure is basic, with the tool name and HTTP method upfront, followed by a bulleted parameter list, but it doesn't effectively communicate core information.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect as a result. For a tool that likely performs a critical operation like testing a registry connection, this level of documentation is insufficient for effective use by an AI agent.

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%, meaning none of the 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description lists parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'registryName' represents, what 'cloud' registryType implies, or the purpose of 'imagePrefix'). This minimal listing doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context ('[registry] registry.testRegistry (POST)'). It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., test connectivity, validate credentials, or verify registry configuration). While it mentions 'registry' and 'POST', it lacks a clear verb and resource combination that explains the tool's function.

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 sibling tools list includes 'dokploy_registry_testRegistryById', which appears related, but the description doesn't differentiate between them or provide any context for choosing this tool over others. No prerequisites or typical use cases are mentioned.

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