Skip to main content
Glama
vcode-sh

@vibetools/dokploy-mcp

by vcode-sh
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v3.1.2

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool targets a different aspect: execute handles code and workflows, list_profiles lists profiles, and search queries the API catalog. Occasional overlap exists (execute and search both reference workflows) but purposes are mostly distinct.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Naming is inconsistent: execute (bare verb), list_profiles (verb_noun with snake_case), search (bare verb). There is no clear pattern across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 3 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a platform like Dokploy that typically requires managing applications, deployments, and configurations. A broader tool set is expected.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set lacks essential operations such as creating, updating, or deleting applications or deployments. While execute and search provide some flexibility, core lifecycle management is absent.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is failing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    The description discloses key behavioral traits such as code execution, workflow modes, polling/cancellation for long-running runs, and resource links. The annotation 'openWorldHint: true' is aligned, and the description adds useful context beyond annotations, though it could be more explicit about side effects.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is well-structured with clear separation of code mode and workflow mode. While it is relatively long, the length is justified by the complexity of the tool. A minor improvement could be front-loading the core purpose more succinctly.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description covers modes, parameters, globals, and workflow features. It mentions resource links and search, but lacks explicit details on return values or error handling, which is a minor gap.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description goes beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of globals (dokploy, helpers), usage patterns, and workflow options like target resolution and rollout. This adds significant value.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool runs JavaScript code or a guided Dokploy workflow, distinguishing two modes (code and workflow). It provides specific details about each mode, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_profiles or search.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies when to use each mode (code vs workflow) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or when to prefer siblings. It mentions specific workflow capabilities but does not set clear boundaries.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by stating it does not expose API keys and describes the returned data, providing safety context beyond annotations.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Single sentence, front-loaded with 'List the available Dokploy profiles'. Every part is necessary and no waste.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose and return content. No missing information.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    No parameters exist (0 params), so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no param information but does not need to.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool lists available Dokploy profiles, including default and named targets, and specifies return fields (names, URLs, config sources). It distinguishes from siblings like 'execute' and 'search'.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage for listing profiles but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute' or 'search'. No exclusion criteria or context provided.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return types (procedure names, parameters, schemas, etc.) and emphasizing that 'catalog' is a global. No contradictions.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is front-loaded with the critical usage note about not wrapping in a function. It then provides structured examples. While slightly lengthy, every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns in sufficient detail (procedure names, parameters, HTTP methods, etc.). It covers the core functionality and usage patterns comprehensively.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds significant value by explaining that 'code' is JavaScript code with examples, and that 'profile' is optional for validation. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly specifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Dokploy API catalog'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'execute' and 'list_profiles' by focusing on catalog exploration rather than execution or profile listing.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Provides extensive usage guidelines with concrete code examples and common patterns. It explains how to use different methods and what each returns. However, it lacks explicit contrast with sibling tools or clear 'when not to use' statements, preventing a top score.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

dokploy-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

dokploy-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vcode-sh/dokploy-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server