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 safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a GET operation, which aligns with annotations but doesn't provide additional details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. 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 brief and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes redundant formatting (brackets, parentheses) and a parameter list that adds little beyond the schema. While not verbose, it lacks efficient information density, with the parameter section being minimally useful given the schema already defines it.

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 purpose (user retrieval by token), no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., user object details), error handling, or how it fits into broader workflows. Annotations provide safety hints, but the description fails to add necessary operational context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists the 'token' parameter as required but provides no semantic context—what the token represents, its format, how to obtain it, or validation rules. This leaves the parameter meaning unclear beyond the basic schema type, failing to add meaningful value.

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 states the tool retrieves a user by token, which is a clear purpose with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('user'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_get' or 'dokploy_user_one', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific token-based lookup versus other user retrieval methods.

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 lists parameters but offers no context about prerequisites (e.g., token source), typical use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_get' or 'dokploy_user_one'. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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