Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic safety information (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what's in the annotations. It doesn't explain what the generated token is for, whether it requires authentication, what permissions it grants, or how it should be used. However, since annotations cover the basic safety profile, this meets the lower bar for tools with 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?

While technically concise (one short phrase), the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes its limited space on redundant information (repeating the tool name) rather than providing useful context. A truly concise description would use its few words to convey actual meaning about the tool's purpose.

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?

For a token generation tool with no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the token is for (API access? session? metrics?), what format it returns, whether it's a JWT or other type, or how it should be used. The annotations provide basic safety info, but the description fails to give the agent enough context to understand when and how to invoke this tool effectively.

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, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools with full schema coverage is 4. The description doesn't contradict or add to the parameter information, which is appropriate given the empty parameter set.

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.generateToken (POST)' is tautological - it restates the tool name and adds HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what kind of token is generated, for what purpose, or what resource it operates on. While 'generateToken' suggests creating an authentication token, the description fails to provide meaningful context about the operation's purpose.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools related to user management (dokploy_user_createApiKey, dokploy_user_session, dokploy_user_getMetricsToken, etc.), but no indication of when this specific token generation tool is appropriate versus those other authentication/authorization tools.

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