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 behavioral context. It mentions 'POST' which implies a write operation, consistent with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what happens on duplicate names, whether this creates a draft or immediately deploys, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety profile, the description adds some value through the HTTP method but lacks richer behavioral disclosure.

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 relatively concise but poorly structured. It front-loads with '[compose] compose.create (POST)' which is somewhat useful, but then devolves into a bare parameter list without explanatory text. While not verbose, the structure doesn't effectively communicate purpose or usage, making it inefficient despite its brevity.

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 (7 parameters, creation tool), zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets created, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or relationships between parameters. For a creation tool with multiple parameters in a complex system, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 description carries full burden for parameter meaning. While it lists parameter names and basic types, it provides almost no semantic information about what these parameters represent (e.g., what is 'environmentId', what does 'composeType' control, what format should 'composeFile' use). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving 7 parameters with minimal guidance beyond their names.

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 ('compose.create') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being created (a Docker Compose application? a compose configuration?), nor does it distinguish this from sibling compose tools like dokploy_compose_deploy or dokploy_compose_update. The description fails to provide a clear verb+resource statement of 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the compose category (create, delete, deploy, update, etc.), there's no indication of when this creation tool is appropriate versus other compose operations or versus application creation tools. No prerequisites, context, 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.