Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), which tells the agent this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value beyond this, but doesn't contradict the annotations. Since annotations cover the key behavioral traits, the bar is lower, and the description doesn't need to repeat what's already declared.

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 extremely concise ('[server] server.all (GET)'), which could be seen as efficient, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks essential context about what the tool actually does. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is one short phrase), it fails to provide meaningful information, making this more of a deficiency than true conciseness.

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's zero parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. The annotations cover safety and behavioral aspects, but the description doesn't explain what 'server.all' retrieves or returns. Without an output schema, the agent has no information about the response format or structure. For a read operation, knowing what data is returned is crucial, making this description incomplete despite the good annotation coverage.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though there are no parameters to describe). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and the schema adequately documents the empty input structure.

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 '[server] server.all (GET)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name and title with minimal added meaning. It indicates this is a GET operation on a server resource, but doesn't specify what 'all' refers to (e.g., all servers, all server data, all server configurations). Compared to sibling tools like dokploy_server_one or dokploy_server_create, the distinction is implied but not clearly articulated.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use it. With numerous sibling tools available (like dokploy_server_one for single server retrieval or dokploy_server_count for counting), the agent receives no help in selecting between them.

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