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 does not contradict these, as 'GET' aligns with read-only behavior. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description's minimal addition warrants a baseline score.

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.publicIp (GET)' is overly terse and lacks structure. It fails to front-load key information in a complete sentence, making it inefficient for quick understanding. While brief, it under-specifies rather than being concise, as it omits essential context that would help an agent.

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 provided), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the public IP address as a string or object), and there is no output schema. For a read-only tool, the description should clarify the return value to aid the agent, but it leaves this ambiguous.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate since none exist. Given the absence of parameters, the baseline score is 4, as there is no need to compensate for missing schema details.

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.publicIp (GET)' is a tautology that restates the name and title with minimal added meaning. It vaguely indicates a GET operation related to a server's public IP, but lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'fetch') and does not specify what resource it acts upon or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_server_getServerMetrics' or 'dokploy_settings_getIp'. This provides insufficient clarity for an agent to understand its specific function.

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 (e.g., 'dokploy_settings_getIp' for general IP retrieval or 'dokploy_server_getServerMetrics' for server data), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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