Dokploy MCP Server

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

The annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal value by indicating this is a GET operation, which aligns with the annotations. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specific OpenAPI document is retrieved.

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 the description is brief, it's not effectively structured or informative. The bracketed '[settings]' prefix and parenthetical '(GET)' add minimal value without proper context. This isn't true conciseness but rather under-specification - the description fails to convey meaningful information despite its brevity.

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 that this tool has no output schema, the description should ideally explain what the tool returns. However, it provides no information about the response format, content, or structure of the OpenAPI document. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description fails to address what value this tool provides to the agent, making it incomplete for practical use.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps since there are no parameters to document.

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.getOpenApiDocument (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what it actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is retrieved (OpenAPI document for what system?) or what the output contains. While it mentions 'settings' context, this is vague and doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from other settings-related siblings like dokploy_settings_getWebServerSettings or dokploy_settings_getTraefikPorts.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context where this is appropriate, or what other tools might be related. Given the many sibling tools in the settings category, this lack of differentiation is particularly problematic.

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