Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no information about what 'saving' entails (e.g., whether it triggers builds, requires specific permissions, or has side effects). With annotations covering basic hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral insight.

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 structured with a header and bulleted parameter list, which is organized but not front-loaded with purpose. It wastes space repeating obvious information (HTTP method) and listing parameters without context. While not verbose, it lacks efficiency in conveying essential information.

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 9 parameters (7 required) with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role in the application lifecycle, the meaning of parameters, expected outcomes, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a complex configuration tool.

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%, meaning no parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what they mean, how they interact with buildType, or their purpose (e.g., why dockerContextPath is required for all build types). This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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.saveBuildType') and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It provides a parameter list but no functional description of saving or configuring build types for applications. This is essentially a tautology of the name/title.

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. With many sibling tools like dokploy_application_create, dokploy_application_update, and dokploy_application_deploy, the description fails to explain when build type configuration should occur in the application lifecycle or what prerequisites might be needed.

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