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 core safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about rate limits, authentication requirements (though 'token' parameter implies auth), what happens if containers don't exist, or what format the metrics are returned in. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar when annotations are present.

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 but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The parameter listing is structured but lacks explanatory value. While it doesn't waste words, it also doesn't provide sufficient information - every sentence (or line) should earn its place by adding meaningful context, which this doesn't achieve.

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 tool with 4 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations that explain parameter semantics, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the parameters mean, when to use it, or how it differs from similar tools. The annotations provide safety information but don't compensate for the missing operational context needed to effectively use this metrics retrieval tool.

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 4 required parameters, the description carries significant burden to explain parameter meaning. It merely lists parameter names and types without any semantic explanation - what 'url' should point to, what kind of 'token' is needed, what 'appName' represents, or what 'dataPoints' should contain (metrics to retrieve, time range, etc.). This provides minimal value beyond the schema's structural information.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal context. It states '[user] user.getContainerMetrics (GET)' which repeats the name and adds the HTTP method, but doesn't explain what 'getContainerMetrics' actually does - what metrics are retrieved, from what system, or what the output represents. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling metrics-related tools like 'dokploy_user_getServerMetrics' or 'dokploy_application_readAppMonitoring'.

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's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools that might retrieve similar metrics. The agent would have no basis for choosing this tool over other monitoring or metrics tools in the extensive sibling list.

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