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 doesn't contradict these, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameter list. It lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'destination' entails, though annotations cover basic safety.

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 and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP method. The parameter list is structured but could be more integrated. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the parameter details might be better in the schema.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations only covering basic hints, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a destination is, how it's used, or the return value, leaving significant gaps for a creation tool in a complex system.

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 with types and required status, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no explanation of 'provider' options, 'endpoint' format, or 'serverId' context). This fails to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 creates a destination, which is a specific verb+resource, but it's vague about what a 'destination' represents in the Dokploy context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like dokploy_destination_update or dokploy_destination_remove, leaving the purpose unclear beyond basic creation.

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. The description lists parameters but doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools like dokploy_destination_update and dokploy_destination_remove exist, but no comparison is provided.

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