Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false), open-world (openWorldHint=true) operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST request, implying it triggers an action, but doesn't elaborate on effects like downtime, permissions needed, or response format. Since annotations cover basic safety, the description's addition is limited, warranting a baseline score.

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 not optimally structured; it front-loads with '[application] application.reload (POST)' which is somewhat redundant, followed by a parameter list. While concise, it lacks efficiency as the parameter info could be better integrated or omitted since it adds minimal value, making it feel under-specified rather than tightly crafted.

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 (a mutable action with 2 parameters), annotations provide basic hints, but there's no output schema. The description fails to explain what 'reload' entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly in 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters 'appName' and 'applicationId' as required but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what these identifiers represent, format examples, or their relationship). This adds little beyond the schema's structural info, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 'application.reload (POST)' which implies reloading an application, but it's essentially a tautology of the tool name 'dokploy_application_reload'. It doesn't specify what 'reload' means in this context (e.g., restarting services, refreshing configuration) or distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_restartContainer' or 'dokploy_application_redeploy'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for application management (e.g., start, stop, redeploy, restartContainer), the description offers no context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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