Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds minimal value beyond this. It mentions 'POST' which implies a write operation (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like what happens on duplicate creation, whether there are side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but adds almost no useful context about the tool's behavior.

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 technically concise (just two lines plus a parameter list), but this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. The structure is somewhat organized with a clear parameter list, but the core description '[application] application.create (POST)' is poorly formatted and uninformative. Every sentence should earn its place, and the parameter list without explanations doesn't add sufficient value.

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 this is a creation tool (implied mutation) with no output schema, 5 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets created, what the expected response looks like, error conditions, or any contextual information needed to use this tool effectively. The description fails to provide the necessary completeness for a tool with this level of complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (2 required), the description merely lists parameter names and basic types without explaining what they mean. It doesn't clarify what 'name' vs 'appName' represent, what 'environmentId' refers to, or what 'serverId' is for. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond what's already in the schema's property names, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('application.create') and provides a parameter list without explaining what an 'application' is in this context. It doesn't specify what resource is being created (e.g., a deployment application, a web app, a service) or what the tool actually does beyond the obvious 'create' action. While it mentions 'POST' which indicates an HTTP method, this doesn't clarify the functional purpose.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'dokploy_compose_create', 'dokploy_mariadb_create', and 'dokploy_application_update', there's no indication of what distinguishes this creation tool from others, what prerequisites might exist, or in what context it should be invoked.

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