Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true) already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what data is returned, pagination, or error conditions. No contradiction exists, but minimal value is added.

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 poorly structured. It includes a redundant header ('[schedule] schedule.list (GET)') and a parameter list without context. While concise, it lacks effective front-loading of purpose and wastes space on formatting rather than informative content.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering basic safety, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of schedules), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a list operation with undocumented inputs, this leaves significant gaps for an 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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameters (id, scheduleType) but doesn't explain their meaning (e.g., what 'id' refers to, what the scheduleType enum values represent). It fails to 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 restates the tool name and title ('schedule.list') without explaining what 'list' means in this context. It mentions parameters but doesn't state what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve schedules for a specific resource). This is a tautology that provides minimal clarification beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_schedule_one, dokploy_schedule_create), the description doesn't differentiate this list operation from other schedule-related tools or indicate prerequisites like required permissions or context.

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