Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), which the description does not contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—such as what 'saveDockerProvider' entails (e.g., configuring Docker registry credentials for an application), potential side effects, or authentication requirements. With annotations covering basic safety, the description 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 front-loads redundant name/HTTP method details and then lists parameters without explanation. While not verbose, it wastes space on unhelpful content rather than conveying useful information, making it less effective than it could be for its length.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and annotations only covering basic hints), the description is highly incomplete. It lacks purpose, parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details, making it inadequate for an agent to understand and correctly invoke this mutation tool in a system with many siblings.

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 parameter names but provides no semantic meaning—e.g., what 'dockerImage', 'username', 'password', etc., represent or how they are used. This adds little beyond the schema's structural information, failing to clarify the purpose or format of parameters for a tool with 5 required inputs.

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.saveDockerProvider') and HTTP method ('POST') without explaining what the tool actually does. It lists parameters but provides no functional purpose statement. This is essentially a tautology of the name/title with added technical details but no meaningful explanation of the tool's action or goal.

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 does not mention any context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like other 'save...Provider' tools (e.g., saveBitbucketProvider, saveGithubProvider). This leaves the agent with no usage direction.

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