Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal context by implying a POST operation for updating, but doesn't disclose additional traits like error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present.

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, but includes redundant information (repeating the name) and lacks structure. It could be more efficient by omitting the tautological part and focusing on meaningful content. However, it's not overly verbose, just under-specified.

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 complexity (mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose, usage, or parameter meanings sufficiently. Annotations help but don't fully compensate for the missing contextual details needed for effective tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (oldOrigin, newOrigin) but only states they are required strings without explaining what they represent (e.g., URLs, identifiers) or their format. This adds little semantic value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 restates the tool name and title without adding meaningful clarification. It mentions 'sso.updateTrustedOrigin (POST)' which is essentially a tautology of the name, and lists parameters but doesn't explain what the tool actually does—like updating a trusted origin in an SSO context. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like dokploy_sso_addTrustedOrigin or dokploy_sso_removeTrustedOrigin.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction. Sibling tools like dokploy_sso_addTrustedOrigin and dokploy_sso_removeTrustedOrigin exist, but the description provides no comparison or selection criteria.

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