Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it implies a setup/configuration action via 'POST' but doesn't detail effects (e.g., whether it installs drivers, allocates resources, or requires specific permissions). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds some value but lacks depth on implementation specifics.

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 path and method, but it wastes space on redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses). It efficiently conveys basic structure in two lines, though it could be more polished by integrating the parameter note into a cohesive sentence.

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 likely complexity (GPU setup), lack of output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'setupGPU' entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, or dependencies. With annotations providing some safety context, it still leaves critical gaps for effective agent 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 provides no semantic meaning (e.g., which server to target, default behavior if omitted, format requirements). This adds minimal value 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/title ('settings.setupGPU') without explaining what it does. It mentions 'POST' which indicates an HTTP method but doesn't specify the action (e.g., configure, enable, initialize GPU settings). This is a tautology that provides minimal clarity beyond the name itself.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after server setup), or related tools like 'dokploy_settings_checkGPUStatus' or 'dokploy_server_setup' from the sibling list. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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