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, read-only, idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the implied GET method, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'haveActivateRequests' returns (e.g., a boolean or list). With annotations covering core traits, the description adds minimal value, scoring baseline 3.

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 single bracketed phrase that fails to convey meaningful information efficiently. While brief, it lacks structure and does not front-load key details, making it ineffective rather than succinct.

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, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (e.g., what 'haveActivateRequests' signifies) or usage context, leaving gaps despite the structured data. For a settings-check tool, more semantic detail is needed to guide 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully handles the lack 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.haveActivateRequests (GET)' is tautological—it restates the name/title with minimal clarification. It implies a GET operation on a 'haveActivateRequests' setting but lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'check' or 'retrieve') and does not explain what 'haveActivateRequests' means (e.g., whether it indicates pending activation requests). Compared to siblings like 'dokploy_settings_toggleRequests', it fails to distinguish its purpose clearly.

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 prerequisites, context (e.g., when checking activation requests is needed), or related tools (e.g., 'dokploy_settings_toggleRequests' for toggling requests). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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