Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which already convey safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what 'buildServers' means operationally, whether it triggers processes, or what the response contains. However, it doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

While concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. A single bracketed phrase provides no useful content, failing to front-load purpose or usage. This isn't effective conciseness but rather a lack of necessary detail.

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 likely complexity (inferred from sibling tools involving server operations), the description is severely incomplete. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description fails to explain what 'buildServers' entails, what it returns, or how it differs from other server tools, leaving critical gaps for agent understanding.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't create confusion about parameters.

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.buildServers (GET)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It provides no specific verb or resource information, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_server_all' or 'dokploy_server_create'.

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 are no usage guidelines provided. The description offers no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, what context it's appropriate for, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent with no guidance on selection among the many server-related sibling tools.

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