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, repeatable read operation. The description adds that it's a 'GET' method, which aligns with read-only behavior and doesn't contradict annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'current plan' refers to in context. With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal value beyond method type.

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 extremely brief ('[stripe] stripe.getCurrentPlan (GET)'), but this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It lacks essential details about purpose and usage, making it ineffective despite its short length. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single fragment fails to provide adequate information.

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 retrieving subscription data) and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. Annotations cover safety, but the description doesn't explain what 'current plan' means, what data is returned, or any prerequisites. For a tool that might involve billing or subscription details, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for and the description doesn't mislead about inputs.

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.getCurrentPlan (GET)' restates the tool name and adds minimal context. It indicates the tool is related to Stripe and uses HTTP GET, but doesn't specify what 'getCurrentPlan' actually retrieves (e.g., current subscription plan details for a user/organization). This is a tautology with slight elaboration, falling short of clearly stating the specific action and resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include other Stripe-related tools like 'dokploy_stripe_getInvoices' and 'dokploy_stripe_getProducts', there's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from those siblings. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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