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 operation with open-world semantics. The description adds nothing beyond this - no information about what 'move' entails operationally, whether it's a migration between environments, what happens to the original compose, authentication requirements, rate limits, or expected side effects. With annotations providing basic safety hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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 with just the tool signature and parameter list, but this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. While not verbose, it fails to provide essential information that would help an AI agent understand and use the tool effectively.

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 this is a mutation tool (non-readonly) with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex sibling tools, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameters mean, or what behavior to expect - leaving critical gaps for agent 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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what 'composeId' and 'targetEnvironmentId' represent, their format, or how they relate to the move operation. This minimal parameter listing doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 restates the tool name as '[compose] compose.move (POST)' which is essentially a tautology, providing no meaningful explanation of what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource 'compose' refers to or what 'move' operation performs. The parameter list is included but doesn't clarify 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. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to sibling tools like 'dokploy_application_move' or other 'move' operations for different resource types (mariadb_move, mongo_move, etc.).

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