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 indicate safe, repeatable operations. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'GET', implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose additional traits like what data is returned, error conditions, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline score is appropriate.

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 brief but poorly structured. It includes a parameter list that is redundant with the schema and lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement. While not verbose, it doesn't efficiently convey necessary information, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 lack of output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'directories' are being read, the format of the output, or any dependencies. For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'serverId (string, optional)' but doesn't explain what a serverId is, how to obtain it, or what effect omitting it has (e.g., defaults to current server). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type information, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 restates the tool name and title ('settings.readDirectories') without explaining what it actually does. It mentions 'GET' and lists a parameter, but doesn't specify what directories are being read (e.g., server directories, configuration directories) or what the purpose of reading them is. This is closer to tautology than a clear purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or related tools (like other 'settings' or 'read' tools in the sibling list). Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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