Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the basic safety profile. The description adds minimal value by indicating it's a GET operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' actually means in terms of scope. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate, though the description could add more context.

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?

While technically concise with just 4 words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on redundant information (the tool name is already 'dokploy_user_all') and doesn't front-load useful information. The bracketed '[user]' prefix adds no value. This isn't effective conciseness - it's inadequate specification.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, good annotations) but lack of output schema, the description should at least indicate what the tool returns. Without an output schema, the agent doesn't know if this returns user objects, IDs, or some other format. The description fails to provide this basic contextual information, making it incomplete for proper tool invocation despite the simple parameter situation.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. No parameter information is missing or needed beyond what's already covered by the empty schema.

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 '[user] user.all (GET)' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does (retrieve all users), nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_one' or 'dokploy_user_get'. The purpose remains vague beyond the literal interpretation of the name.

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. With many sibling tools in the user domain (dokploy_user_one, dokploy_user_get, dokploy_user_update, etc.), the description provides no context about when this specific 'all' endpoint should be used versus other user-related tools. No prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives are mentioned.

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