Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive behavioral hints (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds minimal value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it doesn't provide any additional context about rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes 'trusted origins' in this system.

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 extremely concise (one bracketed phrase) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it wastes no words, it fails to provide essential context that would help an agent understand the tool's purpose. The structure with brackets and parentheses is somewhat organized but doesn't compensate for the lack of meaningful content.

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, comprehensive annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps. Without an output schema, the description should ideally indicate what kind of data is returned (list of origins, configuration objects, etc.). The annotations cover safety aspects, but the description doesn't help an agent understand what 'trusted origins' means in this SSO context.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and the empty input schema is self-explanatory. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 '[sso] sso.getTrustedOrigins (GET)' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds minimal context (HTTP method). It doesn't specify what the tool actually does - whether it retrieves, lists, or fetches trusted origins. While 'GET' implies retrieval, the purpose remains vague compared to what a clear description would provide.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for SSO configuration, or relationship to sibling SSO tools like dokploy_sso_addTrustedOrigin or dokploy_sso_removeTrustedOrigin. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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