Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the agent knows it's a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it implies a GET request but doesn't detail response format, pagination, or error conditions. With annotations doing heavy lifting, the description adds little extra value, warranting a baseline score.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—it's a single cryptic phrase that fails to convey purpose. While brief, it lacks meaningful structure or front-loaded clarity. Every sentence should earn its place, but this one provides little value beyond noise.

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 zero parameters and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'invitations' are, the return format, or how it differs from sibling tools. With no output schema, the description should clarify expected results (e.g., list of invitation objects). It leaves too much undefined for effective agent 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?

There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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.getInvitations (GET)' is tautological—it restates the tool name and adds HTTP method, but lacks a clear verb and resource specification. It doesn't explain what 'getInvitations' actually does (e.g., retrieve pending invitations for the current user). Compared to siblings like 'dokploy_user_sendInvitation' or 'dokploy_organization_allInvitations', it fails to differentiate its scope or 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user authentication), context (e.g., personal vs organizational invitations), or refer to related tools like 'dokploy_organization_allInvitations' for broader access. The description offers no usage instructions.

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