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, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, such as what 'save' entails (e.g., creating or updating a provider), authentication needs, or side effects. With annotations providing basic hints, the description meets a minimal baseline but adds no extra 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 concise but poorly structured: it starts with a redundant restatement of the name, then lists parameters without context. While not verbose, it lacks front-loaded clarity and wastes space on a parameter list that doesn't enhance understanding.

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 (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, usage, or parameter meanings, making it inadequate for an agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 only lists parameter names without explaining their purposes (e.g., what 'bitbucketRepositorySlug' is, how 'watchPaths' are used). This fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 merely restates the tool name and title ('application.saveBitbucketProvider') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify the action (e.g., 'save' or 'configure') or the resource being affected, making it tautological and vague.

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. Given the sibling tools include other provider-saving tools (e.g., saveGithubProvider, saveGitlabProvider), the lack of differentiation or context for choosing Bitbucket is a significant omission.

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