Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't explain what 'randomize' entails (e.g., generating random values, shuffling settings), potential side effects, or error conditions. However, since annotations cover basic safety traits, the description meets a minimal bar without contradicting 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 but not front-loaded with useful information; it starts with redundant details like '[compose]' and the HTTP method. The parameter list is minimal but lacks explanatory value. While concise, it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative.

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 implied by 'randomize' (likely a mutation with unspecified effects), 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how randomization works, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate correctly.

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, but it only lists parameter names ('composeId', 'suffix') without explaining their purpose. It doesn't clarify what 'composeId' refers to (e.g., an existing compose identifier) or what 'suffix' is used for (e.g., appending to randomized names). This leaves 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 restates the tool name ('compose.randomizeCompose') and HTTP method ('POST') without explaining what 'randomizeCompose' means. It doesn't specify what resource is being randomized (e.g., a Docker Compose configuration) or what the effect is, making the purpose vague. The sibling tools include many compose-related operations, but this description fails to differentiate itself from them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a compose), or exclusions. With many sibling tools like 'dokploy_compose_create', 'dokploy_compose_update', and 'dokploy_compose_deploy', the lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent guessing.

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