Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), which already inform the agent this is a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation that may return partial data. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations - it confirms it's a GET operation but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'security' data format to expect. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 extremely concise - just two lines showing the endpoint and parameter. While this avoids verbosity, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity. The structure is clear but under-specified; every word earns its place, but more content would be beneficial for understanding. It's front-loaded with the endpoint but lacks elaboration.

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 potential complexity (security operations often involve sensitive data), the description is inadequate. Annotations cover safety aspects, but there's no output schema, and the description doesn't explain what security information is returned (e.g., firewall settings, access logs, compliance status). With 0% schema coverage and no output details, the agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond knowing it's a safe GET request.

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%, meaning the parameter 'serverId' has no documentation in the schema. The description only lists 'serverId (string, required)' without explaining what a serverId is, where to find it, its format, or valid values. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning ambiguous despite being the only required input.

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.security (GET)' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'dokploy_server_security' with minimal clarification. It indicates a GET operation on server security, but doesn't specify what 'security' entails (e.g., security settings, status, configuration). Compared to siblings like 'dokploy_server_getServerMetrics' or 'dokploy_server_validate', the purpose remains vague about what security information is retrieved.

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 (e.g., 'dokploy_server_all', 'dokploy_server_one', 'dokploy_security_one'), there's no indication of whether this is for retrieving general server information, specific security configurations, or how it differs from other security-related tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are mentioned.

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