Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—it doesn't explain what 'create' entails (e.g., whether it provisions resources, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like DNS propagation), missing opportunities to clarify the tool's behavior for the agent.

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?

While the description is brief, it's under-specified rather than concise—it wastes space on a redundant header ('[domain] domain.create (POST)') and a poorly formatted parameter list that adds no value. The structure is not front-loaded with useful information, making it inefficient and unhelpful for quick comprehension.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints), the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool creates, how parameters relate to domain configuration, what the expected outcome is, or any prerequisites, failing to provide the context needed for effective use in a deployment environment.

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 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaningful semantics beyond listing parameter names and basic types. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'host', 'path', or 'certificateType' mean in context, how they interact, or what values are appropriate, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance for proper tool invocation.

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 'dokploy_domain_create' as '[domain] domain.create (POST)', providing no meaningful explanation of what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being created (e.g., a domain configuration, DNS record, or routing rule) or for what purpose, making it vague and unhelpful for understanding the tool's function.

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. With sibling tools like 'dokploy_domain_update', 'dokploy_domain_delete', 'dokploy_domain_generateDomain', and 'dokploy_domain_validateDomain', there is no indication of how this create operation differs from or relates to those other domain-related tools, leaving the agent with no context for selection.

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