Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and open-world (openWorldHint=true) operation. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and it adds context by specifying it's a POST request, implying it's an API call that modifies data. However, it doesn't elaborate on behavioral aspects like error conditions, permission requirements, or rate limits beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with a clear header and bullet-pointed parameter list, making it easy to scan. However, the first line '[customRole] customRole.update (POST)' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be streamlined, and the content is front-loaded but minimal.

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 complexity (3 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permission object structure, example usage, error handling, and what the update operation returns. While annotations provide some behavioral context, the description doesn't compensate for the missing schema and output information.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description lists parameters (roleName, newRoleName, permissions) and their types/requirements, which adds basic semantics. However, it doesn't explain what 'permissions' object structure entails (e.g., key-value pairs for resource-action mappings) or provide examples, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 the tool updates a custom role, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what 'update' entails beyond the parameter list, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like dokploy_customRole_create or dokploy_customRole_remove, which handle creation and deletion of custom roles respectively.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing role to update), when not to use it, or refer to sibling tools like dokploy_customRole_create for creating new roles or dokploy_customRole_remove for deleting roles.

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