Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds minimal value by specifying the HTTP method (GET), which aligns with read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like response format, pagination, or authentication requirements. Since annotations cover the core safety profile, the description's contribution is limited but not contradictory.

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 brief ('[sso] sso.listProviders (GET)'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose and usage, making it ineffective despite its short length. It's not front-loaded with useful context.

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 (no parameters, good annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'listProviders' returns (e.g., provider names, configurations, statuses), and there's no output schema to compensate. For a list operation, the description should clarify the scope and format of the returned data, which it doesn't.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract from the well-documented absence of parameters.

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.listProviders (GET)' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name with added HTTP method and namespace. It doesn't clearly articulate what the tool does beyond implying it lists something related to SSO providers. It fails to specify what 'listProviders' means in this context (e.g., listing available SSO providers, their configurations, or types).

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. Given the sibling tools include dokploy_sso_one (likely to get a single provider) and dokploy_sso_deleteProvider, there's clear potential for confusion, but the description offers no differentiation. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to related tools.

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