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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't explain what 'start' entails (e.g., launching containers, changing status), potential side effects, error conditions, or permissions required. With annotations covering basic hints, the description fails to add meaningful 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 and front-loaded with the tool name, but includes redundant information (POST method) and a parameter list that doesn't add value. It's concise but under-specified, with sentences that don't earn their place by providing useful guidance.

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 (a state-changing operation), lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect upon success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description merely lists 'applicationId' as a required parameter without explaining what it is, where to find it, its format, or constraints. This adds no semantic information beyond the schema's type and requirement, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 title ('application.start') without adding meaningful context about what 'start' means operationally. It mentions 'POST' which is redundant with HTTP method annotations, and lists the parameter without explaining the action's effect. This is essentially tautological rather than clarifying purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dokploy_application_stop' or 'dokploy_application_deploy'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, expected state of the application, or typical scenarios for invocation.

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