Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover (e.g., no rate limits, auth needs, or return format). However, it does not contradict annotations, so it meets the baseline for having annotations but adds minimal extra value.

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 concise with two lines, but it is poorly structured and under-specified. The first line '[server] server.one (GET)' is cryptic, and the parameter listing is minimal. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks clarity and effective front-loading of key information, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or provide essential context for a read operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists 'serverId (string, required)' but adds no semantic meaning (e.g., what a serverId is, format examples, where to find it). This partially compensates by naming the parameter but fails to provide meaningful context, resulting in inadequate 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 '[server] server.one (GET)' is vague and tautological. It repeats the tool name 'server.one' without specifying what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve server details, fetch server configuration). It mentions 'GET' which indicates an HTTP method but doesn't clarify the action or resource purpose. This provides minimal clarity beyond the name itself.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_server_all' or 'dokploy_server_getServerMetrics'. Without such information, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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