Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context by specifying it's a GET operation, which aligns with read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'root access' entails in this system. 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?

While concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It's a single bracketed phrase that fails to convey meaningful information beyond the tool name. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; this is too sparse to be helpful.

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, rich annotations) but lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean indicating root access status, or an error if unauthorized). For a permission-checking tool, this omission is significant, as the agent needs to know how to interpret the result.

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 lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any. It meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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.haveRootAccess (GET)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal added context. It indicates a GET operation related to user root access but lacks a clear, specific verb-resource statement explaining what the tool actually does (e.g., 'Check if the current user has root/administrative access privileges'). It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling user tools like dokploy_user_get or dokploy_user_getPermissions.

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. There are no indications of prerequisites, context for invocation, or comparisons with sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_user_getPermissions for detailed permissions). It's a bare statement with zero usage instructions.

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