Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'POST' which implies a write operation, aligning with annotations, but doesn't disclose what 'deploy' does (e.g., triggers a build, restarts services, may have side effects like downtime). For a deployment tool with no output schema, more detail on behavior (e.g., asynchronous, returns deployment ID) would help.

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 brief but not optimally structured. It front-loads '[compose] compose.deploy (POST)', which is useful, but the parameter list is redundant with the schema and lacks explanatory value. The two sentences are efficient but could be more informative by replacing the parameter list with usage context.

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 tool's complexity (deployment operation with 3 parameters), lack of output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens during deployment, what the output might be (e.g., success status, deployment logs), or error conditions. With annotations covering basic hints, more operational context is needed for effective 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 must compensate. It lists parameters (composeId, title, description) but doesn't explain their meaning (e.g., composeId identifies which compose to deploy, title/description are optional metadata for the deployment). Without this, the agent cannot understand what values to provide beyond basic types.

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 the tool is for 'compose.deploy (POST)', which implies deploying a compose configuration. However, it's vague about what 'compose' refers to (likely Docker Compose) and doesn't specify what deployment entails (e.g., starting containers, updating services). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dokploy_compose_create' or 'dokploy_compose_update' by focusing on deployment, but lacks specificity about the resource being deployed.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'dokploy_compose_create', 'dokploy_compose_redeploy', 'dokploy_compose_start'), the description doesn't indicate prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing compose), exclusions, or typical scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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