Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, it adds minimal value by implying a read operation ('readWebServerTraefikConfig') and specifying 'GET', which aligns with annotations. It doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like what exactly is read, format of returned data, or any constraints. 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 concise but under-specified—it's a single bracketed phrase that doesn't effectively communicate purpose. While it's brief, it fails to be informative, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but clearer description. It's front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 complexity implied by the tool name (reading web server Traefik configuration) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, the scope of the configuration read, or how it differs from similar tools. Annotations cover safety aspects, but the description doesn't add enough context for 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a tool with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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.readWebServerTraefikConfig (GET)' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds minimal context. It mentions 'settings' and 'readWebServerTraefikConfig' but doesn't clearly state what the tool does beyond implying it reads something related to web server Traefik configuration. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_settings_readTraefikConfig' or 'dokploy_settings_updateWebServerTraefikConfig'.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling tools in the settings category (e.g., 'dokploy_settings_readTraefikConfig', 'dokploy_settings_updateWebServerTraefikConfig'), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over others.

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