Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dokploy MCP Server

Dokploy MCP Server

by bravos2k5
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

port-update

Idempotent

Updates the published port, target port, and protocol for an existing port configuration on a Dokploy server.

Instructions

POST /port.update

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "portId": "<portId>",
      "publishedPort": "<publishedPort>",
      "targetPort": "<targetPort>"
    },
    "name": "port-update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portIdYes
publishedPortYes
publishModeNoingress
targetPortYes
protocolNotcp

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens on update, permissions needed, or side effects). It does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but conciseness should not sacrifice completeness. It lacks essential information, making it more under-specified than concise.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters, 2 enums, no output schema) and lack of annotations beyond hints, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, parameter behavior, or expected outcomes.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. It provides no information about the meaning of portId, publishedPort, targetPort, or the enums. The schema alone does not clarify semantics.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description is merely the HTTP endpoint 'POST /port.update', which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not state what the tool does, what a 'port' represents, or how it differs from sibling tools like port-create or port-delete.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for its use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools