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, open-world operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context—it implies a POST request for saving configuration, which aligns with the annotations. However, it lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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 under-specified rather than concise—it wastes space on a redundant tool name and a bare parameter list without meaningful explanations. It lacks front-loaded purpose and structured guidance, making it inefficient for an AI agent to parse and use effectively.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. 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 a configuration-saving operation in a system with many sibling tools.

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 are documented in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their purpose (e.g., what gitlabId or gitlabPathNamespace represent). For a tool with 10 parameters (8 required), this leaves critical semantics undefined, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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.saveGitlabProvider') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb+resource statement like 'saves GitLab provider configuration for an application' and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like dokploy_application_saveGithubProvider or dokploy_application_saveBitbucketProvider.

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 for GitLab integration, or when to choose this over other Git provider tools like saveGithubProvider or saveBitbucketProvider from the sibling list.

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