Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a GET request, which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'Traefik ports' specifically refers to (e.g., dashboard ports, entry points).

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes redundant brackets and formatting that add noise. The parameter listing is minimal, making it efficient overall, though it could be cleaner.

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 complexity of a system tool with no output schema and low parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Traefik ports' are, the return format, or error conditions. Annotations provide safety hints, but more context is needed for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only lists the parameter 'serverId' as optional without explaining its purpose, format, or when it should be used. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 states the tool retrieves Traefik ports from settings, which is a specific verb (get) and resource (Traefik ports). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_readTraefikConfig' or 'dokploy_settings_updateTraefikPorts', leaving the scope unclear. The purpose is identifiable but lacks differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools related to Traefik configuration, this omission leaves the agent without usage direction.

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