Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description's burden is reduced. The description adds minimal value by indicating it's a GET operation, which aligns with the read-only nature. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral context about what 'show' means operationally, what gets displayed, or any constraints beyond what annotations already cover.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single bracketed phrase '[sso] sso.showSignInWithSSO (GET)' wastes space on redundant information (repeating the tool name) while failing to convey meaningful purpose or usage. It's not appropriately sized for a tool that presumably has some functional significance in the SSO 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 complexity of the SSO domain and the extensive sibling tool list, this description is woefully incomplete. There's no output schema, and the description provides no information about what this tool returns or how it differs from other SSO tools. The annotations provide safety information, but the functional purpose remains unclear, making it difficult for an agent to understand when and why to invoke this specific tool.

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% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps since there are none.

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.showSignInWithSSO (GET)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional context. It indicates the tool is related to SSO and uses GET method, but doesn't specify what it actually does (e.g., displays SSO sign-in options, retrieves SSO configuration, or shows available providers). The description fails to distinguish this tool from sibling SSO tools like dokploy_sso_listProviders or dokploy_sso_one.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to other SSO tools in the extensive sibling list. An agent would have no idea whether to use this tool versus dokploy_sso_listProviders or dokploy_sso_getTrustedOrigins for SSO-related tasks.

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