Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true) already indicate this is a safe, non-destructive, idempotent read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'GET', which aligns with the annotations. However, it does not provide additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which would be beneficial given the lack of an output schema.

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 '[settings] settings.getWebServerSettings (GET)' is overly concise to the point of being cryptic and under-specified. It lacks complete sentences or clear structure, making it difficult to parse and understand without additional context. While brief, it fails to effectively communicate purpose or usage.

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 does not explain what 'web server settings' includes, the expected output format, or any behavioral nuances beyond the annotations. With no output schema, the description should ideally clarify the return value, but it does not, leaving gaps in understanding for the agent.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description does not add parameter information, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema already covers everything.

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.getWebServerSettings (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name with minimal additional context. It indicates a GET operation on web server settings but lacks specificity about what 'web server settings' entails or what resource it targets, failing to clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_readWebServerTraefikConfig' or 'dokploy_settings_updateWebServerTraefikConfig'.

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 does not mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other settings-related tools in the list), leaving the agent with no information to make an informed selection.

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