Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no mention of what 'generate' entails, whether it creates resources, requires permissions, or has side effects. With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds minimal value.

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 but poorly structured - it starts with redundant bracketed information '[domain] domain.generateDomain (POST)' before listing parameters. While concise, it wastes space on obvious information (POST method) rather than explaining purpose. The parameter list format is clear but adds little value.

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 domain generation tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no output schema, and annotations only covering basic hints, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'generating a domain' means operationally, or how parameters affect the outcome. The agent would struggle to use this correctly.

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 schema provides only type information. The description lists parameter names but adds no semantic meaning - doesn't explain what 'appName' refers to (application identifier? name pattern?), what 'serverId' is for, or how they affect domain generation. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 restates the tool name ('domain.generateDomain') without explaining what 'generateDomain' means in this context. It mentions parameters but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., creates a domain, generates a subdomain, provisions DNS). This is closer to tautology than clear purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling domain tools (create, delete, update, validate) but the description doesn't explain how this differs from 'dokploy_domain_create' or when generation is appropriate versus creation. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.

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