Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the description's burden is lower. However, it adds no context beyond what annotations already cover—no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specific user data is returned. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it adds no value.

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 brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise. The single phrase '[user] user.get (GET)' fails to convey meaningful information—it's essentially a label, not a helpful description. Every sentence should earn its place, but this provides almost no value.

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), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what user data is retrieved, whether it's the current user or a specific one, or what the output looks like (no output schema exists). For a user-related tool in a system with many alternatives, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role.

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 inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies no parameters are needed (though this is inferred from the name/context rather than explicitly stated). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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.get (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and HTTP method without specifying what it actually does. It doesn't clarify what 'user.get' retrieves (current user info, user by ID, etc.) or distinguish it from sibling tools like dokploy_user_one or dokploy_user_all.

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. Given sibling tools like dokploy_user_one, dokploy_user_all, and dokploy_user_session, the description offers no indication of when this specific 'get' operation is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other user-related tools.

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