Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context with '(GET)', implying a read operation that aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'NodeInfo' entails, leaving gaps despite the annotations.

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 and structured with a clear header and parameter list, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, it could be more front-loaded by starting with the tool's purpose rather than technical details like '[swarm]'. The efficiency is good, but the structure prioritizes metadata over actionable 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 complexity implied by swarm operations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'NodeInfo' returns, error conditions, or dependencies. With no output schema and minimal parameter explanation, an agent cannot fully understand how to use this tool effectively in context, especially compared to siblings.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description lists parameters (nodeId, serverId) but provides no semantic meaning. It doesn't explain what these IDs represent, their format, or how they affect the query. For example, it's unclear if serverId scopes the node lookup or is optional for filtering. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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] swarm.getNodeInfo (GET)' which is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing minimal additional context. It mentions 'GET' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify what 'NodeInfo' actually contains or what resource it retrieves. While it distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on 'swarm' and 'node', it lacks the specificity needed for clear understanding.

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 any prerequisites, such as needing swarm cluster access, or differentiate it from similar tools like 'dokploy_swarm_getNodes' or 'dokploy_cluster_getNodes' in the sibling list. Without this context, an agent cannot make informed decisions about tool selection.

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