Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open world), but the description adds minimal value beyond this. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this creates new certificates from scratch or imports existing ones, what happens on duplicate names, or any rate limits. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it gets a baseline score for adding some context through the parameter list.

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 concise but under-specified. It wastes space on redundant information like '(POST)' and the parameter list formatting. The structure is poor - it doesn't front-load the purpose, and the parameter list lacks meaningful organization. However, it's not excessively verbose.

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 certificate creation tool with 8 parameters (4 required), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations covering mutation behavior, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens on success/failure, or provide any context about certificate management in Dokploy. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.

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, the description carries full burden for explaining parameters. While it lists all 8 parameters with basic types, it provides no semantic meaning - no explanation of what certificateData should contain, what format privateKey expects, what autoRenew controls, or what organizationId/serverId refer to. The parameter list adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema structure.

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 states '[certificates] certificates.create (POST)' which is essentially a tautology - it restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does (creates SSL/TLS certificates in Dokploy) or what resource it operates on. While it mentions 'certificates', it doesn't specify what kind of certificates or their 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?

There are no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like dokploy_certificates_all (list certificates) or dokploy_certificates_remove (delete certificates). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for certificate creation.

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