Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that's non-destructive and non-idempotent, with open-world semantics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it confirms creation but doesn't specify what happens on duplicate role names, permission validation, or response format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 includes redundant formatting (brackets, HTTP method) and lacks front-loaded clarity. It wastes space on obvious structure instead of focusing on essential usage information, though it's not overly verbose.

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?

For a creation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and nested objects (permissions), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the permission object structure, success/failure responses, or any system-specific constraints, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters (roleName and permissions) but provides no semantic details—no explanation of permission structure, valid values, constraints (e.g., roleName length 1-50), or examples. This leaves significant gaps in understanding parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool creates a custom role with specific parameters (roleName and permissions). It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('customRole'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like dokploy_customRole_update or dokploy_customRole_remove, which would require explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like dokploy_customRole_update or dokploy_customRole_all.

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