Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal value by specifying 'GET', which aligns with read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose additional traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. With annotations covering core safety, a baseline score is appropriate.

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 method, but it's under-specified rather than concise. While it avoids unnecessary words, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. A single line with the parameter listed is structured but incomplete.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks purpose clarity, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively. Annotations help but don't fully compensate for the missing contextual details.

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 schema only defines 'userId' as a required string without explaining its meaning. The description lists 'userId' but provides no semantic context (e.g., what format it expects, where to find it, or its role in fetching a user). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the parameter poorly understood.

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.one (GET)' restates the tool name and HTTP method but lacks a clear verb and resource specification. It doesn't explain what 'user.one' does (e.g., retrieve a specific user by ID) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_get' or 'dokploy_user_all'. This is closer to a tautology than a meaningful purpose statement.

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. With sibling tools like 'dokploy_user_get' and 'dokploy_user_all', the description offers no context on differences (e.g., this tool might fetch a single user by ID while others list users). This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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