Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates, side effects, permissions required, or response format). For a mutation tool with 44 parameters, this is inadequate.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It wastes space on a parameter list that belongs in the schema, without adding explanatory value. The structure lacks a clear purpose statement upfront, making it difficult to parse.

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 high complexity (44 parameters, mutation operation), zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect in return. This leaves 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 no parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description provides only a raw parameter list without any explanation of what each parameter means, their relationships, or how they affect the update. With 44 parameters (many with unclear purposes like 'suffix', 'randomize', or various git provider fields), this leaves the agent completely in the dark.

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 a tautology that merely restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what it does. It provides no verb+resource combination, no indication of what a 'compose' is in this context, and no differentiation from sibling tools like dokploy_compose_create or dokploy_compose_delete.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use it. With many sibling compose tools (create, delete, deploy, etc.), this lack of guidance is particularly problematic.

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