Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds minimal value by implying a GET operation, but doesn't disclose additional context like authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'permissions' entail. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 bracketed phrase with no complete sentences. While brief, it fails to convey meaningful information efficiently, as it doesn't earn its place with useful content.

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) but lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'permissions' are returned, the format, or any error conditions. For a user-facing tool in a complex system, more context is needed despite the annotations.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description doesn't add parameter details (since there are none), but it implicitly suggests no inputs are required. This is adequate given the empty schema.

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.getPermissions (GET)' is tautological—it restates the tool name with minor formatting and adds the HTTP method, but doesn't explain what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb+resource statement (e.g., 'Retrieve permissions for the current user') and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like dokploy_user_get 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. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like dokploy_user_getPermissions (if any) or related permission tools aren't referenced, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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