Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it's a POST request, implying a state-changing action, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already cover (e.g., whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to the application during the move, or if it's asynchronous). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 brief and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but the parameter list is redundant with the schema and lacks explanatory value. It could be more efficient by omitting the parameter enumeration or adding meaningful context instead.

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 complexity of moving an application (a state-changing operation), the description is inadequate. With no output schema, it doesn't explain return values or success/failure indicators. Combined with 0% schema coverage and minimal behavioral details, it leaves too many unknowns for reliable use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the two parameters (applicationId and targetEnvironmentId) but provides no semantic meaning—what an 'applicationId' refers to, what a 'targetEnvironmentId' represents, or how to obtain valid values. This leaves critical gaps for proper tool invocation.

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 states the tool moves an application, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like dokploy_application_deploy, dokploy_application_redeploy, or dokploy_compose_move, leaving ambiguity about what 'move' specifically entails versus deployment operations.

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 prerequisites (e.g., whether the application must be stopped first), what 'move' means in context (e.g., between environments, servers, or clusters), or when not to use it (e.g., during active deployments).

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