Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal value by specifying it's a GET operation, which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or what data is returned. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 (GET), but it includes redundant formatting (brackets and parentheses) and could be more polished. It efficiently states the core action and parameter in two lines, with no unnecessary sentences, though the structure is slightly informal.

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, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how it fits with siblings. For a simple read tool, it meets the minimum but doesn't provide full context for effective 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 documents the parameter type and requirement without descriptions. The description lists 'scheduleId' as a required string but adds no meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format, source, or examples). With one parameter and high schema coverage for structure, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the lack of semantic 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 the tool is a GET operation on a 'schedule' resource, which provides a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'schedule.one' means (likely retrieving a single schedule) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'dokploy_schedule_list' or 'dokploy_schedule_create'. The description is vague about the exact action and resource scope.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_schedule_list' for listing multiple schedules or 'dokploy_schedule_create' for creating one), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid scheduleId. Usage is implied only by the parameter requirement.

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