Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and openWorldHint=true (can create new resources). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't explain what 'update' means in practice (e.g., partial vs full updates, validation behavior, or what happens with missing optional fields). No contradiction with annotations exists, but with annotations covering basic safety profile, the description adds minimal 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 technically concise (just a parameter list), but it's poorly structured for understanding. It front-loads with '[bitbucket] bitbucket.update (POST)' which is redundant with the tool name, then presents a bare parameter list without grouping or explanation. While not verbose, it fails to use its limited space effectively to convey purpose or usage.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and rich sibling context (multiple git provider tools), this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool updates, what the parameters mean, what the expected outcome is, or how it relates to other Bitbucket/git provider operations. The annotations provide basic safety hints but don't compensate for the missing functional context.

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%, so the schema provides only type/requirement information without any semantic meaning. The description merely lists parameter names without explaining what they represent (e.g., what bitbucketId refers to, what gitProviderId is, or how name is used). For 9 parameters with no schema descriptions, this is inadequate compensation. The description adds almost no value beyond what's already visible in the parameter names themselves.

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.update') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (e.g., a Bitbucket provider configuration) or what the update operation entails. While it mentions 'POST', this is technical implementation detail rather than functional 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include dokploy_bitbucket_create, dokploy_bitbucket_one, and dokploy_bitbucket_testConnection, there's clear need for differentiation (e.g., when to update vs create a Bitbucket provider, or when to use this versus other git provider update tools like dokploy_github_update). No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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