Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the core safety profile. The description adds minimal value by implying this is a GET operation (which aligns with annotations) but doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the token is used for. With comprehensive annotations, the bar is lower, but the description could still add more context.

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 '[user] user.getMetricsToken (GET)' is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes characters on redundant information (the tool name) without adding meaningful content. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single fragment fails to provide adequate information despite its brevity.

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 apparent purpose (retrieving/generating a metrics token for monitoring), the description is incomplete. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should explain what the token is used for, its format, or how it relates to other metrics tools. Compared to siblings like 'dokploy_user_getServerMetrics', this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the structured schema already provides.

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.getMetricsToken (GET)' is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds minimal context. It mentions 'user' and 'GET' but doesn't specify what the tool actually does - whether it retrieves, generates, or validates a metrics token. Compared to sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_getPermissions' or 'dokploy_user_generateToken', it fails to distinguish its specific 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationship to sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_getServerMetrics' or 'dokploy_settings_getServerMetrics'. The agent receives zero usage instructions.

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