Dokploy MCP Server

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

The description provides no behavioral information beyond what's in the annotations. Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description doesn't add any context about what 'register' actually does behaviorally, what gets created, authentication requirements, or any side effects. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations.

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 technically concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on redundant information like '(POST)' while providing minimal useful content. The parameter list is presented but without meaningful context, making the structure functional but not helpful.

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?

For a complex SSO registration tool with 7 parameters (including deeply nested OIDC and SAML configuration objects), 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations providing behavioral context, this description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect as a result.

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% schema description coverage and 7 parameters (including complex nested objects), the description provides only a basic parameter list without any semantic explanation. It doesn't explain what 'providerId', 'issuer', 'domains', or the configuration objects represent, what format they should be in, or how they relate to SSO registration. The description fails to compensate for the complete 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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context. It states '[sso] sso.register (POST)' which repeats the name and adds HTTP method, but doesn't explain what 'register' means in the SSO context. No specific verb+resource combination or differentiation from sibling tools is provided.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used versus other SSO tools in the sibling list (like dokploy_sso_update, dokploy_sso_deleteProvider, etc.), or any context about appropriate use cases.

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