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 no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what metrics are returned. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 under-specified, not concise—it's a single cryptic string "[user] user.getServerMetrics (GET)" that fails to communicate purpose or usage. While brief, it wastes its limited space on redundant details rather than helpful information, lacking front-loaded clarity.

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 likely complexity (retrieving server metrics), the description is incomplete. Annotations provide safety, but no output schema exists, and the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., metric types, format). It fails to add meaningful context beyond structured fields, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is unnecessary here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.

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.getServerMetrics (GET)" is tautological—it restates the name and adds HTTP method without explaining what the tool does. It doesn't specify what server metrics are retrieved (e.g., CPU, memory, disk usage) or for which server, making the purpose vague and indistinguishable from siblings like 'dokploy_server_getServerMetrics'.

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., server access), context (e.g., monitoring needs), or sibling tools like 'dokploy_server_getServerMetrics' or 'dokploy_user_getContainerMetrics', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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