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, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the POST method hint. It doesn't explain what 'save' entails (e.g., whether it creates or updates Git provider settings, potential side effects like triggering deployments, or authentication needs). With annotations providing basic safety hints, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 front-loads with a tautological statement and then lists parameters without grouping or explanation. While not verbose, the structure doesn't effectively communicate purpose or usage, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation), lack of output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. Annotations provide some behavioral hints, but the description fails to add necessary context for effective tool use.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists parameter names but offers no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'customGitBranch' represents, format of 'customGitUrl', or purpose of 'watchPaths'). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 that restates the tool name ('application.saveGitProvider') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource it acts on (e.g., an application's Git provider configuration) or what 'save' means in this context (create, update, or configure). While it mentions POST method, this doesn't clarify the purpose beyond the name.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing application), context (e.g., setting up Git integration), or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_saveGithubProvider' or 'dokploy_application_disconnectGitProvider'. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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