Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, or response format. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations (e.g., it doesn't imply mutation). With annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description's lack of additional context results in a baseline score.

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 '[sshKey] sshKey.all (GET)' is overly concise to the point of being cryptic. It's front-loaded but lacks meaningful content, failing to convey useful information in its single phrase. While brief, it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative, making it less helpful for an AI agent.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, annotations provided), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of SSH keys, their format, or any metadata), and there's no output schema to compensate. For a read operation, the description should at least hint at the return value, but it omits this entirely, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's functionality.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't add any parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description needn't 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 '[sshKey] sshKey.all (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and HTTP method without clarifying what the tool actually does. It mentions 'sshKey' and 'all' but doesn't specify the action (e.g., list, retrieve, fetch) or what resource is being accessed. Compared to sibling tools like 'dokploy_sshKey_create' or 'dokploy_sshKey_remove', it fails to distinguish its specific purpose beyond the name.

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 context, prerequisites, or relationships with sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_sshKey_one' for a single SSH key or 'dokploy_sshKey_create' for creating new ones). There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what scenarios it addresses.

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