Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by specifying it's a GET request, but doesn't disclose additional context like authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. 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 brief but not well-structured. It includes the tool name in brackets and 'GET', but the parameter listing is minimal and lacks explanatory context. While concise, it could be more informative without adding unnecessary length.

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 simple input schema (one required parameter) and rich annotations, the description is somewhat complete for a basic read operation. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, it should explain the return value (e.g., SSH key details) and parameter semantics more clearly to be fully helpful.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only lists 'sshKeyId (string, required)' without explaining what an SSH key ID is, its format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 states 'sshKey.one (GET)' which indicates a GET operation on an SSH key resource, but it's vague about what 'one' means (likely retrieving a single SSH key). It doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_sshKey_all' (list all) or 'dokploy_sshKey_get' (if existed), though the name suggests it retrieves a specific SSH key by ID.

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 sibling tools like 'dokploy_sshKey_all' for listing all SSH keys or 'dokploy_sshKey_create' for creating new ones, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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