Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true) already indicate this is a safe, repeatable read operation with open-world semantics. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying 'GET', which aligns with read-only but doesn't provide additional details like rate limits, authentication needs, or return format. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description 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 extremely concise ('[stripe] stripe.getInvoices (GET)'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it under-specifies the tool's purpose and usage, making it feel incomplete rather than optimally brief. It's front-loaded but lacks substance, so it doesn't fully earn its place.

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 (a Stripe API call) and lack of output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., invoice list, format, pagination) or any behavioral nuances. Annotations cover safety, but the description fails to provide necessary context for effective use, especially compared to richer sibling tools.

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 parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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.getInvoices (GET)' restates the tool name and adds minimal context (stripe prefix and GET method). It indicates the tool retrieves invoices from Stripe but lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all invoices, filtered, paginated) and doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like other Stripe-related tools (e.g., dokploy_stripe_getProducts). This is closer to a tautology with minor elaboration.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., Stripe integration setup), context (e.g., for billing management), or exclusions (e.g., not for creating invoices). Given the sibling list includes other Stripe tools (e.g., dokploy_stripe_getProducts, dokploy_stripe_createCheckoutSession), the absence of differentiation is a significant gap.

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