Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal value by implying a read operation via 'GET', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which are relevant for a Stripe integration.

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 overly concise to the point of being underspecified—it consists of a single bracketed phrase without meaningful structure. While brief, it fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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 (integrating with Stripe) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of products) or any Stripe-specific nuances, leaving gaps despite the comprehensive annotations.

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 does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the absence of parameters, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

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.getProducts (GET)' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method, which is redundant. It does not clearly articulate what the tool does (e.g., retrieve product listings from Stripe) or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_stripe_getInvoices', leaving the purpose vague.

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. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or any mention of related tools (e.g., for creating or updating products), providing no usage instructions.

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