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, non-destructive, idempotent read operation with open-world semantics. The description adds minimal value by implying a read action via 'GET', but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific data is returned. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description could have provided more context.

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 a single, cryptic string '[settings] settings.readMiddlewareTraefikConfig (GET)' that is not front-loaded with clear purpose. It lacks proper sentence structure and wastes space on redundant information (e.g., repeating the tool name). While brief, it fails to convey meaningful information efficiently, making it under-specified rather than 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 complexity (implied by 'middleware Traefik config' in a DevOps context), the description is insufficient. Annotations provide safety hints, but there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., configuration details, format). Without this, an agent cannot understand the tool's full context or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps despite the annotations.

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% coverage, meaning no parameters are required or documented. The description does not add parameter information, which is unnecessary here. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, as there is no need for the description to compensate for missing schema details.

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.readMiddlewareTraefikConfig (GET)' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name and adds a method hint. It does not clearly articulate what the tool does (e.g., what middleware Traefik config is, what data it retrieves, or its scope). While it hints at a read operation via 'GET', it lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'dokploy_settings_readTraefikConfig' or 'dokploy_settings_updateMiddlewareTraefikConfig'.

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, nor does it refer to sibling tools (e.g., updateMiddlewareTraefikConfig for modifications). Without such information, 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.