Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), but the description adds almost no behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'saveEnvironment' means operationally - whether this overwrites existing environment, merges with it, or creates new. No information about permissions needed, side effects, or what happens on success/failure. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 technically concise - it's just a parameter list. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. The structure shows parameters but lacks any explanatory prose about the tool's function. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary context that would help an agent understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

This is a mutation tool (non-readonly) with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex sibling context. The description is completely inadequate - it doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, or what behavior to expect. For a tool that likely modifies application environment configuration, this level of documentation is insufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description carries full burden. It merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what 'env', 'buildArgs', 'buildSecrets' contain, what format they should be in, or what 'createEnvFile' actually does. The 'any' type parameters especially need semantic clarification that isn't provided.

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 is essentially a tautology - it restates the tool name 'application.saveEnvironment' without explaining what 'saveEnvironment' actually does. It provides no verb or resource context beyond what's already in the name. While it lists parameters, it doesn't articulate the tool's purpose or what environment is being saved.

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 are absolutely no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or what context it operates in. With many sibling tools available (like various 'save' operations for different resources), this lack of guidance is particularly problematic.

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