Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description's burden is reduced. The description adds that this is a GET operation, which aligns with the read-only annotation. However, it doesn't provide any additional behavioral context about what 'check' entails, error conditions, or response format.

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 - just two lines showing the method and parameter. While it's front-loaded with the essential information, it's arguably too brief given the complete lack of explanatory content about the tool's purpose and usage.

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 has no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (organizations list? membership status? validation result?), nor does it provide any context about the Dokploy system's organization model. The annotations help, but the description leaves too many gaps for effective tool 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 description must compensate. It only lists 'userId (string, required)' without explaining what a valid userId looks like, where to obtain it, or what happens if an invalid userId is provided. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the bare 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 restates the tool name ('user.checkUserOrganizations') and method ('GET') without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what 'checkUserOrganizations' means - whether it retrieves, verifies, or lists organizations for a user. This is a tautology that provides minimal value beyond 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many user-related tools in the sibling list (dokploy_user_get, dokploy_user_one, dokploy_user_getPermissions, etc.), but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from them or indicate appropriate use cases.

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