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 operation with open-world hints, but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'save' entails (e.g., creation, update, or configuration), potential side effects, or error conditions, relying solely on annotations.

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 as a parameter list without explanatory text. It front-loads the tool name and method but wastes space on a basic parameter enumeration that adds little value beyond the schema.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks purpose clarity, usage context, parameter explanations, and behavioral details, making it insufficient for effective agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters, the description lists parameters but provides no semantic meaning (e.g., what 'githubId' refers to, how 'watchPaths' are used). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters poorly understood.

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 and HTTP method (POST) but doesn't explain what 'saveGithubProvider' means. It's unclear whether this creates, updates, or configures a GitHub provider for an application. While it mentions parameters, the core purpose remains 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'saveGitProvider' or 'saveGitlabProvider' is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing application or GitHub connection, leaving usage context unclear.

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