Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key hints: readOnlyHint=false (implies mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), openWorldHint=true (open-world). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning it's a POST operation, which aligns with annotations but doesn't elaborate on effects like service interruption or permissions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core action ('docker.restartContainer'), followed by parameter listing. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the parameter section is minimal. It could be more structured but remains efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with one parameter), annotations cover safety traits, but there's no output schema. The description lacks details on return values, error conditions, or operational impact (e.g., downtime). It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the full context.

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 'containerId (string, required)' but provides no semantic details—what format the ID should be, where to find it, or examples. This adds little value beyond the schema's structural info, failing 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'docker.restartContainer (POST)' indicates it restarts a Docker container. It specifies the verb (restart) and resource (container), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dokploy_docker_getContainers' or other container management tools beyond the name prefix.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists parameters but offers no context about prerequisites (e.g., container must be running), alternatives (e.g., start/stop tools), or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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