Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide clear hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation with open-world semantics. The description adds minimal context by specifying 'GET', which aligns with read-only behavior, but does not disclose additional traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is returned. Since annotations cover the safety profile adequately, the description's limited addition warrants a baseline score.

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 '[user] user.session (GET)' is overly concise to the point of under-specification. It consists of a single phrase that fails to convey meaningful information beyond the tool name and HTTP method. While brief, it does not effectively communicate purpose or usage, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise.

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, annotations provided, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., session data, user info) and any contextual nuances like authentication needs. While annotations cover safety, the description should add more about the operation's outcome to be fully helpful for an 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable given the lack of parameters. It implies a simple, parameterless operation, aligning with the schema, so it meets the baseline for this scenario.

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.session (GET)' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name and title with minimal additional information. It indicates a GET operation on a user session resource but lacks specificity about what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieves current session details, validates authentication). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like dokploy_user_get or dokploy_user_one, which also handle user-related operations.

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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it's for authenticated users only or how it differs from other user-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., dokploy_user_get). This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction.

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