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. The description adds that it's a POST request, which aligns with the non-read-only hint, but doesn't provide additional behavioral context (e.g., what 'refreshToken' entails, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits). With annotations covering basic traits, the description adds minimal value beyond confirming the HTTP method.

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 front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method, but it includes a redundant parameter list that doesn't add value beyond the schema. It could be more concise by omitting the parameter listing or integrating it with meaningful explanations.

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 no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool does, when to use it, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes. For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, more context is needed to guide 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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists 'composeId' as a required string parameter but doesn't explain what a composeId is, where to find it, or its format. This adds minimal semantics beyond the schema's structural information.

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 and title ('compose.refreshToken') without explaining what 'refreshToken' means in this context. It mentions 'POST' and lists parameters, but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., generates a new token for a compose resource, invalidates old tokens, etc.). This is closer to tautology than clear 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'dokploy_application_refreshToken' and other compose-related tools, but the description doesn't differentiate this tool from those or provide any context for its appropriate use.

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