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—it doesn't explain what 'trusted origin' entails, potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with annotations, this is a minimal disclosure.

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 inefficiently structured—it repeats the tool name and HTTP method without adding value. The parameter listing is minimal but not front-loaded with critical information. It avoids verbosity but under-specifies key details.

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 complexity (SSO configuration mutation), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'trusted origin', expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it fits into SSO workflows. Annotations help but don't fill these gaps.

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 documentation. The description lists 'origin' as a required string but adds no meaning—it doesn't explain what an 'origin' is (e.g., URL format, validation rules) or its role in SSO. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool adds a trusted origin for SSO, which is a clear verb+resource combination ('addTrustedOrigin' for 'sso'). However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling SSO tools like 'dokploy_sso_removeTrustedOrigin' or 'dokploy_sso_getTrustedOrigins' beyond the basic action implied by the name. The description is vague about what 'trusted origin' means in context.

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 (e.g., SSO configuration), exclusions, or related tools like 'dokploy_sso_removeTrustedOrigin' for removal. It leaves 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.