Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world). The description adds minimal value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), but doesn't provide any additional context about what 'default command' means, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little beyond what annotations already convey.

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 structured with clear parameter listing. However, the first line '[server] server.getDefaultCommand (GET)' is redundant with the tool name and title, making it slightly wasteful. The overall structure is clean but could be more efficient by eliminating the redundant prefix.

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 lack of output schema and 0% parameter documentation coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'default command' means in this context, what format the response will have, or how this tool relates to the broader server management functionality. For a tool with rich annotations but no output schema, the description should provide more context about the expected return value.

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% schema description coverage for the single parameter (serverId), the description provides no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. It merely lists the parameter name without explaining what a serverId is, how to obtain it, or what format it should have. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 HTTP method without explaining what 'getDefaultCommand' means or what resource it operates on. It's a tautology that doesn't clarify the actual purpose beyond what's already in the name. The description should specify what default command is being retrieved and for what type of server.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other 'getDefaultCommand' tools for different resources like compose), there's no indication of when this specific server-related tool is appropriate versus other server tools or general retrieval tools.

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