Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what's in annotations. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the cloud IPs are returned in. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description adds minimal 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?

While technically concise (one bracketed phrase), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The '[settings]' prefix adds minimal value, and the rest merely repeats the tool name with '(GET)' appended. It fails to front-load essential information about what the tool actually does.

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 has zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool as a GET operation under settings, but doesn't explain what 'DokployCloudIps' are or what format they're returned in. For a simple read-only tool with good annotations, this is the bare minimum.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for and no schema gaps to fill.

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 '[settings] settings.getDokployCloudIps (GET)' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds minimal context. It indicates this is a GET operation under settings, but doesn't specify what 'DokployCloudIps' are or what the tool actually retrieves. Compared to sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_getIp' or 'dokploy_settings_getTraefikPorts', it doesn't clearly differentiate its specific purpose.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to similar tools like 'dokploy_settings_getIp' or 'dokploy_server_publicIp'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific cloud IP retrieval tool is appropriate.

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