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, openWorld operation, but the description adds no behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'import' entails (e.g., whether it creates or updates resources, potential side effects, or error conditions). With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds minimal value beyond them.

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 and structured with a header and parameter list, but it's under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on formatting (brackets, dashes) without delivering meaningful content. While not verbose, it lacks substance, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information.

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 has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's function, parameter meanings, expected outcomes, or error handling. For a tool likely involving data import operations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 no parameter details. The description lists parameter names and types but doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., what 'base64' represents, what 'composeId' is used for, or format requirements). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 merely restates the tool name and title ('compose.import') without explaining what it does. It lists parameters but doesn't specify the action (e.g., importing a Docker Compose configuration from base64 data). This is a tautology that fails to clarify the tool's purpose beyond its name.

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. Sibling tools include many compose-related tools (e.g., dokploy_compose_create, dokploy_compose_deploy), but the description provides no context for selection. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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