Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context—it only states 'GET', implying a read operation. However, it doesn't explain why destructiveHint=true (e.g., if fetching status triggers cleanup or has side effects) or provide details on rate limits, authentication needs, or output format. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral insights.

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 concise but under-specified—it's a single bracketed phrase with minimal information. While not verbose, it fails to convey essential details, making it inefficient in terms of usefulness. It's structured as a code-like reference rather than a helpful description, which limits its effectiveness.

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, annotations provided), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of what 'log cleanup status' entails, the return value (no output schema), or how it fits into the broader system (e.g., related to 'dokploy_settings_updateLogCleanup'). With annotations, some context is covered, but the description doesn't compensate for missing output details or operational context.

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% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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.getLogCleanupStatus (GET)' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves the current status of log cleanup settings or checks if log cleanup is enabled). While it hints at a 'settings' context, the purpose remains vague compared to what a clear description would provide.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_settings_updateLogCleanup' for updating), or typical scenarios for checking log cleanup status. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage.

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