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 safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond implying a GET operation, which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'release tag' entails. With annotations doing heavy lifting, the description adds minimal value, 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 is overly concise to the point of under-specification. It consists of a bracketed category '[settings]' followed by a restatement of the name and HTTP method, which is inefficient and lacks informative content. While brief, it fails to convey meaningful information, making it structurally poor despite its length.

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 doesn't explain what a 'release tag' is, its format, or typical use cases, leaving gaps in understanding despite the annotations covering behavioral safety. For a tool that likely returns version-related data, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, though it also doesn't enhance understanding of inputs.

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.getReleaseTag (GET)' is a tautology that restates the name/title with minimal added meaning. It indicates the tool is a GET operation related to settings and release tags, but lacks a specific verb like 'retrieve' or 'fetch' and doesn't clarify what a 'release tag' represents in this context (e.g., version identifier, deployment marker). While it distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'settings', the purpose remains vague.

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 (e.g., for version checks, deployment tracking), or related tools among the many siblings (e.g., other settings tools like 'getDokployVersion'). Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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