Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal value by indicating this is a GET operation, which aligns with the read-only annotation. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare.

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 5 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity. While it's front-loaded with the essential operation type (GET), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Every word earns its place, but more words would be needed to make this truly helpful.

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 complexity of the Dokploy system with over 200 tools, this description is inadequate. While annotations provide good behavioral coverage and there are no parameters to explain, the description fails to explain what this tool actually returns or how it fits into the broader context. Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value, but it provides no such information.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and the empty input schema is fully documented. The description's mention of 'GET' operation is appropriate but doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's already clear from the 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.withSSHKey (GET)' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name with minimal additional context. While it indicates this is a GET operation related to servers and SSH keys, it doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve server SSH key information, list servers with SSH keys, etc.). It fails to distinguish this tool from its many siblings in the Dokploy system.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 200 sibling tools in the Dokploy system, including other SSH key tools (dokploy_sshKey_all, dokploy_sshKey_one, etc.) and server tools (dokploy_server_all, dokploy_server_one, etc.), the agent receives no indication of this tool's specific use case or how it differs from related tools.

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