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, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by implying a GET request, which aligns with the annotations but doesn't provide additional behavioral context (e.g., what 'count' entails, format of the count, or any limitations). No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description doesn't enrich understanding beyond what annotations provide.

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 '[server] server.count (GET)' is extremely brief but not effectively concise—it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It uses minimal words but fails to convey meaningful information, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description. While it's front-loaded (the only content), it doesn't earn its place by adding value.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations present, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'count' refers to (e.g., total servers, active instances), the return format, or any contextual details needed for an agent to understand the tool's output. Annotations cover safety, but the description lacks essential operational context, making it inadequate 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't detract from this.

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.count (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'dokploy_server_count' in a different format. It mentions 'server' and 'count' but doesn't specify what is being counted (e.g., servers, instances, resources) or provide a clear verb-action. While it hints at counting something related to servers, it lacks specificity and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'dokploy_server_all' or 'dokploy_server_one'.

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 description provides no context about its purpose, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_server_all' for listing servers). This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed selection among similar server-related tools.

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