Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond what's already in annotations. The description doesn't explain what 'start' means operationally - whether it starts a stopped compose, initiates a deployment, or performs some other action. No information about side effects, error conditions, or operational characteristics is provided. However, there's no contradiction with annotations.

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 two lines, but this conciseness comes at the cost of being severely under-specified. The structure shows the HTTP method and lists the parameter, but the information is presented without proper context or explanation. While not verbose, it fails to provide necessary information that would help an 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 that this is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) with no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what the parameter means, what happens when invoked, or what the expected outcome is. The combination of poor description, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema leaves the agent with insufficient information to use this tool 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?

The description lists 'composeId (string, required)' but provides zero semantic context about what a composeId is, where to find it, or what format it should have. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation. The parameter is mentioned but not explained, leaving the agent with no meaningful guidance.

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 states '[compose] compose.start (POST)' which is a tautology that restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what the tool actually does. It mentions 'compose' but doesn't specify what a compose is in this context or what 'start' means operationally. The description fails to provide a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes this tool from its siblings like 'dokploy_compose_stop' or 'dokploy_compose_deploy'.

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 are multiple related compose tools (create, delete, deploy, stop, etc.) but no indication of when 'start' is appropriate versus 'deploy' or other operations. No prerequisites, conditions, or contextual usage information is provided.

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