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 operation with open-world semantics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It doesn't explain what 'testing' a registry entails, whether it makes external calls, what side effects occur, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a POST operation that likely interacts with external systems, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 but not effectively structured. It wastes space on redundant information (repeating the tool name and HTTP method) while lacking meaningful content. The parameter listing is poorly formatted and adds little value without explanations. While concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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?

For a POST operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what results are returned. The combination of poor annotations coverage and inadequate description leaves the agent with insufficient information to use this tool 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%, meaning neither parameter has any description in the schema. The tool description only lists parameter names ('registryId', 'serverId') without explaining their purpose, format, or relationship. It doesn't clarify whether both are required together, what a 'registryId' refers to, or how 'serverId' relates to the registry testing operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 restates the tool name ('registry.testRegistryById') and HTTP method ('POST') without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'testRegistryById' means - whether it validates connectivity, checks credentials, verifies configuration, or performs some other test operation. The description is tautological rather than explanatory.

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 include 'dokploy_registry_testRegistry' (without the 'ById' suffix), but the description provides no differentiation between these tools. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this specific tool is appropriate is provided.

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