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, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'generate' entails—whether it returns a key, stores it, requires authentication, or has side effects). With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds minimal value, but for a creation-like tool, more context is needed.

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 but poorly structured—it mixes tool path, HTTP method, and parameter list without clear separation. It's front-loaded with '[sshKey] sshKey.generate (POST)', but the content is minimal and could be more organized. While not verbose, it lacks effective communication, making it mediocre in conciseness.

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 likely creates something (implied by 'generate' and POST), annotations provide some safety hints, but there's no output schema. The description doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., key pair, success status) or any operational details. With 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the parameter 'type' with enum values, but this is already clear from the schema. It doesn't explain what 'type' means (e.g., algorithm choice), default behavior if omitted, or other semantics. With 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, the description adds only redundant information, failing to provide meaningful context.

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 ('sshKey.generate') and adds the HTTP method (POST), which is tautological. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., generate a new SSH key pair, return a public key, store it somewhere). The title and name are identical, providing no additional clarity. However, it does mention the resource ('sshKey'), preventing a score of 1.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'dokploy_sshKey_create', 'dokploy_sshKey_all', etc., but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them (e.g., whether this generates a key while 'create' might store it). No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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