Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation that may return partial data. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'GET', but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description's limited addition justifies a baseline score.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes a redundant parameter listing that adds little value. It could be more concise by integrating parameter details meaningfully. However, it avoids unnecessary verbosity and is structured clearly.

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 has one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that cover basic safety, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose, usage, or parameter meaning adequately, making it insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret results.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the single parameter 'providerId'. The description only lists 'providerId (string, required)' without explaining what it represents (e.g., an identifier for an SSO provider), its format, or examples. 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 '[sso] sso.one (GET)' which partially indicates it's a GET operation related to SSO, but it's vague about what it actually retrieves (e.g., a specific SSO provider configuration). It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'dokploy_sso_listProviders' or 'dokploy_sso_update', leaving the agent uncertain about the exact resource and action.

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. The description lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'dokploy_sso_listProviders' (which might list multiple providers) or 'dokploy_sso_update' (which modifies providers). This absence makes it difficult for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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