Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering key behavioral traits (safe, non-destructive, repeatable, open-world). The description adds minimal value by implying a GET operation, which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, the description's contribution is limited, warranting a baseline score.

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 '[settings] settings.getDokployVersion (GET)' is overly concise to the point of under-specification. It lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement and consists of fragmented elements that do not form a coherent sentence. While brief, it fails to efficiently convey essential information, making it less helpful than a more structured, albeit longer, description would be.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., version string, object) or its significance, leaving gaps in understanding despite the annotations covering safety. For a tool that likely returns critical system information, more context on the output and use case is needed to be fully helpful.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description does not add any parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none. According to the rules, for 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, as no additional parameter semantics are needed beyond 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 '[settings] settings.getDokployVersion (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with minimal added context. It mentions 'settings' and 'GET' but lacks a clear, specific verb+resource statement like 'Retrieve the current Dokploy software version' that would distinguish it from sibling tools. This provides minimal differentiation from other settings tools like dokploy_settings_getIp or dokploy_settings_getReleaseTag.

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. It does not indicate any specific context, prerequisites, or exclusions for its use. Given the many sibling tools, there is no mention of when this tool is appropriate compared to other version-related or settings tools, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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