Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value beyond annotations - the '(GET)' notation reinforces read-only nature but doesn't describe return format, authentication requirements, or rate limits. 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?

While brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. The single bracketed phrase '[settings] settings.isUserSubscribed (GET)' wastes characters on redundant information (the tool name appears twice) while failing to convey meaningful purpose. Every character should earn its place, but this provides minimal useful information.

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 simple nature (0 parameters, good annotations), the description is still inadequate. Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean subscription status, subscription details object). The current description leaves the agent guessing about the return value format and meaning of 'isUserSubscribed'.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the empty input. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to provide beyond what the schema already states.

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.isUserSubscribed (GET)' is tautological - it restates the tool name and adds only the HTTP method. It doesn't explain what 'isUserSubscribed' means or what resource it checks. While 'GET' implies retrieval, the purpose remains vague compared to sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_getCurrentPlan' or 'dokploy_settings_haveActivateRequests' which have clearer purposes.

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 many sibling settings tools available (e.g., dokploy_settings_getCurrentPlan, dokploy_settings_haveActivateRequests), there's no indication whether this checks subscription status for the current user, all users, or some other scope. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned.

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