Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal value beyond this, as it only hints at a GET operation without detailing output format, error conditions, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a baseline score is appropriate, but the description could enhance context.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it uses minimal words, it fails to convey essential information like the resource or purpose, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single sentence lacks substance.

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, good annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what IP address is retrieved or the return format, and with no output schema, the agent lacks necessary context. For a read-only tool, more detail on the output would improve usability, making this description insufficient.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add any parameter details, which is acceptable here, but it doesn't compensate for other gaps, so a score of 4 reflects adequacy without extra value.

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.getIp (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and HTTP method without specifying what resource is retrieved. It mentions 'settings' and 'getIp' but doesn't clarify what IP address is being retrieved (e.g., server IP, public IP, network interface IP) or from which context, making the purpose vague and indistinguishable from sibling tools.

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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., for server configuration, monitoring, or diagnostics), or sibling tools that might serve similar purposes (e.g., dokploy_server_publicIp), 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.