Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover, such as explaining what 'update' entails, potential side effects, or error conditions. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description fails to supplement them meaningfully.

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 concise but under-specified, consisting of a minimal header and a parameter list. While it avoids redundancy, it lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement and essential context. The structure is basic, with parameters listed but not well-integrated into explanatory text.

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 (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations that only partially cover behavior, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively without additional context.

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%, placing full burden on the description to explain parameters. The description merely lists parameter names and types without adding semantic meaning, constraints, or examples (e.g., what 'aiId' identifies, format of 'createdAt', purpose of 'isEnabled'). It doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'ai.update' with minimal context. It lacks a specific verb-resource combination that explains what 'ai' refers to or what kind of update operation is performed. While it lists parameters, it doesn't articulate the tool's purpose beyond the name.

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 sibling tools like 'dokploy_ai_create' or 'dokploy_ai_get', nor does it specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for usage. This leaves the agent with no contextual decision-making information.

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