Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which already inform the agent that this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by implying a GET request, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific 'cloud' setting is retrieved. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 being cryptic. It consists of a single phrase '[settings] settings.isCloud (GET)' which is not front-loaded with clear intent and fails to communicate purpose efficiently. While brief, it lacks the structure needed for effective understanding, making it under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 present), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'isCloud' means, what value it returns (e.g., boolean, string), or why this information is useful. With no output schema, the description should provide more context about the return value to help the agent understand the tool's role in the system.

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 input schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description does not add any parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter semantics completely.

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.isCloud (GET)' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name 'dokploy_settings_isCloud' without clearly explaining what the tool does. While it hints at retrieving a cloud-related setting, it lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_getDokployVersion' or 'dokploy_settings_health'.

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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios. This is particularly problematic given the many sibling tools in the 'settings' category.

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