Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide structured hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), which inform the agent this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation that may create new resources. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover, such as side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits. However, it does not contradict annotations, so it meets the baseline for when annotations are present.

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 signature, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on formatting (brackets, dashes) without adding value. While not verbose, it lacks essential information, making it inefficient in conveying purpose or usage.

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 (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and annotations covering basic hints), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'setupMonitoring' entails, what the 'metricsConfig' object configures, or what the tool returns. For a configuration tool with significant parameter complexity, this leaves the agent poorly equipped to use it correctly.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only lists parameter names ('serverId', 'metricsConfig') without explaining their purpose, expected values, or relationships. For a complex nested object like 'metricsConfig' with many sub-properties, this lack of semantic explanation is a significant gap, failing to compensate for the schema's deficiency.

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 and title ('server.setupMonitoring') without adding meaningful context about what the tool actually does. It provides a verb ('setupMonitoring') but lacks specificity about what monitoring entails, what resources are affected, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'dokploy_server_getServerMetrics' or 'dokploy_application_readAppMonitoring'. This is essentially a tautology of the name/title.

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 related to monitoring, metrics, and server configuration, there is no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinctions from similar tools. The agent receives no usage direction.

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