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 doesn't add any behavioral context beyond these annotations (e.g., what 'redeploy' entails, whether it causes downtime, if it's asynchronous, or what happens to existing deployments). It doesn't 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.

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

The description is brief but inefficiently structured—it includes a redundant endpoint path ('application.redeploy (POST)') and a parameter list without explanations. It's front-loaded with minimal useful information, but the parameter section could be more informative.

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 (a redeployment operation with 3 parameters), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the redeployment process, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 parameters (applicationId, title, description) but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what applicationId refers to, what title/description are used for, format requirements). This adds little beyond the schema's property names.

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 restates the tool name ('application.redeploy') without explaining what 'redeploy' means in this context. It mentions parameters but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., triggers a redeployment of an application, restarts containers, rebuilds from source). This is closer to tautology than clear 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dokploy_application_deploy', 'dokploy_application_reload', or 'dokploy_compose_redeploy'. The description provides no context about prerequisites, timing, or differences from sibling tools.

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