Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive hints (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds that this is a GET operation, which aligns with readOnlyHint=true. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral context such as what 'GPU status' entails, whether authentication is required, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 brief (effectively one line plus a parameter list), which could be seen as concise. However, it's structured poorly with bracketed text '[settings]' and mixes HTTP method notation with parameter documentation in a non-standard format. While not verbose, it lacks clear organization and front-loading of key information.

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 GPU status checking (which could involve hardware detection, driver status, utilization metrics) and the absence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'GPU status' means, what information is returned, or how to interpret results. The annotations help with safety profile, but the functional purpose remains opaque.

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. It lists 'serverId (string, optional)' but provides no semantic context about what this parameter means, what values are valid, or how it affects the GPU status check. Without this information, the agent cannot understand when or why to provide a serverId versus leaving it unspecified.

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 ('settings.checkGPUStatus') without explaining what 'checkGPUStatus' actually does. It mentions 'GET' which indicates an HTTP method but doesn't clarify what resource is being checked or what information is returned. This is essentially a tautology that provides minimal additional insight beyond the name.

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 numerous sibling tools related to settings, servers, and monitoring (like 'dokploy_settings_setupGPU', 'dokploy_server_getServerMetrics', 'dokploy_settings_getUpdateData'), there's no indication of when this specific GPU status check is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other monitoring tools.

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