Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation with open-world semantics. The description adds minimal context with '(GET)' but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'node apps' entail. With annotations covering core safety, a baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 concise with two lines: a title-like statement and a parameter list. It's front-loaded with the core action, but the parameter section is minimal and could be more informative. There's no wasted text, making it efficient though 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 (swarm context, 1 parameter), lack of output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'node apps' are, the return format, or how the optional parameter affects results. Annotations help with safety, but overall context is insufficient for effective use.

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 schema only documents 'serverId' as an optional string without meaning. The description lists 'serverId (string, optional)' but adds no semantics—it doesn't explain what a serverId is, how to obtain it, or its impact on the operation. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters poorly understood.

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 states 'swarm.getNodeApps (GET)' which indicates a GET operation for node apps in a swarm context, providing a basic verb+resource. However, it lacks specificity about what 'node apps' are (e.g., applications, services, containers) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_swarm_getNodeInfo' or 'dokploy_swarm_getNodes', leaving the purpose somewhat 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'swarm' context but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'dokploy_swarm_getNodes' or 'dokploy_application_search', leaving the agent without usage context.

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