Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), which isn't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't describe behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs beyond the token parameter, or what the metrics output looks like.

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 tool name and HTTP method, but it wastes space on a redundant parameter list that adds no value beyond the schema. The structure is minimal but not optimally efficient; it could be more concise by omitting the parameter enumeration and instead explaining their purposes.

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 complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain what metrics are retrieved, the format of the response, or how parameters like 'dataPoints' should be used. Annotations cover safety, but the description lacks essential operational context for a metrics retrieval tool.

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 description must compensate. It lists parameter names (url, token, dataPoints) but provides no semantic context—what these parameters represent, their formats, or examples. For instance, 'dataPoints' is undocumented; it could be a comma-separated list, JSON, or something else. This leaves critical gaps for proper tool invocation.

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 ('server.getServerMetrics') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what server metrics are retrieved (e.g., CPU, memory, disk usage) or what resource is being measured. This is a tautology that provides minimal value beyond the name.

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. It doesn't mention any sibling tools (like dokploy_server_getServerTime or dokploy_user_getServerMetrics) that might serve similar purposes, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for invocation.

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