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, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain what 'refreshToken' entails (e.g., whether it returns a new token, affects existing sessions, or requires specific permissions). Given the lack of annotations on side effects or auth needs, the description fails to compensate, leaving key behaviors unclear.

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 structured with a parameter list, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The first line repeats obvious information (name and HTTP method), and the parameter listing is redundant with the schema. While not verbose, it wastes space on unhelpful details instead of earning its place with useful content.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the action's outcome (e.g., what the refreshed token is used for), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity implied by 'refreshToken' in a deployment context, more context is needed for effective 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%, and the description only lists 'applicationId' as a required string without explaining its purpose (e.g., identifier of the application whose token needs refreshing). It doesn't clarify format, source, or constraints beyond the schema's minLength. With low coverage, the description should add meaning but provides minimal semantic value.

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 and title ('application.refreshToken') without explaining what 'refreshToken' means in this context. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) and lists the parameter, but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., generates a new token, invalidates old ones, or updates authentication credentials). This is a tautology that provides minimal additional insight 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, related tools (like 'dokploy_application_one' for retrieving application details), or scenarios where token refreshing is necessary (e.g., after expiration). Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage contexts.

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