Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as what 'setup' entails, potential side effects, or execution details. It doesn't contradict annotations, but offers no additional 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 extremely concise with minimal waste, consisting of a single line. However, it lacks structure and front-loading of key information, as it doesn't clearly state the tool's purpose upfront. It's efficient but under-specified rather than optimally structured.

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 likely complexity (a setup operation with no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'setup' does, expected outcomes, or error conditions. With annotations covering basic hints but no behavioral details, the description fails to provide a complete picture for effective use.

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 for the undocumented parameter 'serverId'. The description provides no information about what 'serverId' is, its format, where to obtain it, or its role in the setup process. It fails to add any semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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.setup (POST)' is a tautology that restates the name and title without adding meaningful context. It mentions 'server.setup' which is essentially the tool name, and 'POST' which is implied by the absence of readOnlyHint. No specific verb or resource is clarified beyond what's already obvious from the naming.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'dokploy_server_setupMonitoring' and 'dokploy_server_create', the description fails to differentiate this tool's specific use case, prerequisites, or exclusions. It provides no context for selection.

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