Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what these annotations convey. It doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific whitelabeling data is returned. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations (it mentions 'GET' which aligns with read-only), so it meets the lower bar set by having annotations.

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 extremely concise ('[whitelabeling] whitelabeling.get (GET)') but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficient. It uses brackets and parentheses in a way that doesn't add clarity, and the single line fails to communicate meaningful information. While it's short, it doesn't effectively use its limited space to help an AI agent understand the tool's purpose.

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 complexity (whitelabeling operations can involve multiple settings), the absence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what whitelabeling data is retrieved, the format of the response, or how this differs from the 'getPublic' sibling. While annotations cover safety aspects, the description fails to provide necessary context about the domain-specific operation, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand what this tool actually does.

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 (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters since none exist. It appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent inputs, though it could have mentioned that no parameters are required. Given the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, this score reflects that the description doesn't add parameter semantics but doesn't need to.

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 '[whitelabeling] whitelabeling.get (GET)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't specify what 'get' means in this context (retrieve whitelabeling settings, configuration, or status) or what resource it operates on. While it includes 'whitelabeling' which gives some domain context, it lacks a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes its purpose from siblings like 'dokploy_whitelabeling_getPublic' or 'dokploy_whitelabeling_update'.

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 doesn't mention when this tool should be used instead of 'dokploy_whitelabeling_getPublic' (which likely retrieves public-facing whitelabeling data) or 'dokploy_whitelabeling_update' (which modifies whitelabeling settings). There's no context about prerequisites, access levels, or typical use cases for this specific get operation.

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