Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'GET', which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'TraefikEnv' contains. With annotations providing strong coverage, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and 'GET', but includes redundant formatting like brackets and a label that could be omitted. The parameter listing is clear but not integrated into a cohesive sentence. It avoids fluff but could be more structured for better readability.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter) and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it fails to explain what 'TraefikEnv' returns or its format. For a read operation, this gap reduces completeness, though annotations help cover safety aspects.

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 the parameter 'serverId (string, optional)', which matches the schema, but does not explain what 'serverId' is, its format, or when it should be provided. This adds basic parameter awareness but lacks meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already indicates through its type and optionality.

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.readTraefikEnv') without clarifying what 'TraefikEnv' refers to or what reading it entails. It includes 'GET' which hints at retrieval, but lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_readTraefikConfig' or 'dokploy_settings_readTraefikFile'. This is closer to tautology than clear purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools with similar names (e.g., readTraefikConfig, readTraefikFile), the absence of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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