Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—no information about permissions needed, rate limits, side effects, or what happens when fields are updated. With annotations covering basic safety, 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?

While the description is technically concise in terms of word count, it is poorly structured and under-specified. It wastes space on a raw parameter dump instead of providing meaningful prose. The information is not front-loaded with purpose or usage, making it inefficient for an agent to parse.

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 high complexity (97 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema) and the absence of annotations explaining behavioral details, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what an 'application' is in this context, how updates are applied, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool of this scale, the description is wholly inadequate.

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 none of the 97 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their purpose, relationships, or usage. For a tool with 97 parameters, this is completely inadequate and provides no semantic understanding beyond what the schema already indicates through type constraints.

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 a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'application.update' without explaining what it does. It provides no meaningful verb+resource statement or differentiation from sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_create' or 'dokploy_application_one'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites, when this update operation is appropriate, or how it differs from other application-related tools in the sibling list.

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