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 no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't explain what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it persists data, requires authentication, or has side effects), leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief, the description is under-specified rather than concise—it wastes space on a redundant header ('[bitbucket] bitbucket.create (POST)') and a bare parameter list without meaningful context. The structure doesn't front-load key information about the tool's purpose.

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 (9 parameters, mutation tool), lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what is created, the expected inputs, the outcome, or error conditions, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 (7 optional, 2 required), the description merely lists parameter names without explaining their purpose, relationships, or semantics. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'bitbucketId', 'appPassword', or 'authId' represent, or how they interact, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('bitbucket.create') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being created (e.g., a Bitbucket provider configuration, repository connection, or integration), nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like dokploy_bitbucket_update or dokploy_bitbucket_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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this should be called, or what alternatives exist among the many sibling tools (e.g., dokploy_gitea_create, dokploy_github_update).

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