Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide important behavioral information (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what's already in annotations - it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens when updating specific fields. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations either, so it meets the baseline expectation when annotations are present.

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 reasonably concise but poorly structured. It front-loads the tool name and method, but then presents a bulleted parameter list that belongs in the schema. The formatting as a code-like block makes it less readable. While not verbose, it wastes space on information that should be in structured fields rather than providing meaningful descriptive content.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic behavioral hints, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'destination' is in this system, what fields can be updated, what the update operation actually does, or what the expected response looks like. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 9 parameters (8 required), the description merely lists parameter names without any semantic explanation. It doesn't clarify what 'provider' type 'any' means, what 'destinationId' identifies, what format 'endpoint' should follow, or the relationship between parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 essentially a tautology that restates the tool name ('destination.update') with minimal added value. It mentions 'POST' which indicates the HTTP method, but doesn't explain what a 'destination' represents in this context or what specific aspects are being updated. While it lists parameters, it doesn't articulate the tool's purpose beyond the obvious from the name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_destination_create' or 'dokploy_destination_remove'. An agent would have no contextual information about when this update operation is appropriate.

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