Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context with 'stripe' and 'GET', but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like what 'canCreateMoreServers' returns (e.g., boolean, quota details), error conditions, or Stripe-specific requirements. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds little beyond them.

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 concise but under-specified, not efficient. It's a single bracketed phrase that fails to convey purpose or usage, wasting space on redundant information (name and HTTP method). While brief, it lacks structure and front-loaded clarity, making it unhelpful rather than succinct.

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 (likely checking server creation limits via Stripe), the description is incomplete. Annotations provide safety hints, but without an output schema, the description should explain the return value (e.g., boolean, quota object). It fails to do so, leaving the agent unsure of what to expect, which is inadequate for a tool that may inform critical decisions.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as there's nothing to compensate for. No value is added, but none is needed.

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 '[stripe] stripe.canCreateMoreServers (GET)' restates the tool name and adds only the HTTP method and a vague 'stripe' context. It lacks a specific verb and resource definition, failing to explain what 'canCreateMoreServers' actually checks (e.g., quota, billing status, or capacity). While it hints at a Stripe-related check, it's tautological and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'dokploy_stripe_getCurrentPlan' or 'dokploy_stripe_getProducts'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'dokploy_stripe_getCurrentPlan' and 'dokploy_stripe_upgradeSubscription', an agent would not know if this tool is for pre-checking server creation limits, verifying subscription tiers, or something else, leading to potential misuse.

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