Dokploy MCP Server

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

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 specifying '(GET)', which aligns with the read-only annotation. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like what 'health' encompasses, response format, or potential error conditions. The description doesn't contradict annotations, so no contradiction flag is raised.

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 brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. The single bracketed phrase '[settings] settings.health (GET)' is cryptic and doesn't form a complete sentence or clear explanation. It fails to front-load essential information about the tool's purpose, making it inefficient despite its short 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, good annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of what 'health' means in this context, what the output contains, or why this tool exists among many settings siblings. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the return value, but it doesn't. The annotations help, but the description leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't attempt to do so. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, and the schema coverage is complete.

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.health (GET)' is a tautology that restates the tool name and title without adding meaningful purpose. It mentions 'settings' and 'health' but doesn't specify what health information is retrieved or what resource is involved. While it includes the HTTP method '(GET)', this doesn't clarify the actual function beyond what's already implied by the name.

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. With numerous sibling tools in the 'settings' category (e.g., dokploy_settings_getDokployVersion, dokploy_settings_getWebServerSettings), there's no indication of what distinguishes this health check from other settings-related tools. The agent receives no usage context or prerequisites.

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