Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide critical behavioral information: readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=false (not idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (can create new resources). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't explain what 'redeploy' actually does (e.g., restarts containers, pulls new images, reapplies configurations), whether it causes downtime, or any side effects. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds no value.

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 (three lines), but this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. The structure includes the endpoint path and parameter list, which is organized, but the content lacks meaningful explanation. Every sentence (or line) should earn its place, and here the parameter listing without explanations doesn't add sufficient value.

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 write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what redeployment entails, what the parameters mean, what happens during execution (e.g., downtime, logging), or what the response contains. For a mutation tool in a complex deployment system with many sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use it 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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only lists parameter names and types without explaining what they mean: 'composeId' (what identifies the compose to redeploy?), 'title' (what is this title used for?), 'description' (what is this description used for?). This provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type constraints, insufficient for a tool with 3 undocumented parameters.

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.redeploy') without explaining what 'redeploy' means in this context. It doesn't specify what resource is being redeployed (a Docker Compose application/stack), what the redeployment entails, or how it differs from initial deployment. While it mentions the HTTP method (POST), this doesn't clarify the actual purpose beyond the 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?

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing compose deployment), when redeployment is appropriate (e.g., after configuration changes), or how it differs from similar tools like 'dokploy_compose_deploy' or 'dokploy_application_redeploy' in the sibling list. This leaves the agent with no context for tool selection.

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