Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and openWorldHint=true (accepts unknown values). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't explain what gets updated, whether permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, this earns a baseline 3.

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 technically concise - just a method signature and parameter list. However, it's structured poorly as a parameter dump rather than a helpful description. While not verbose, it wastes its limited space on information already available in the schema rather than adding explanatory value. The front-loaded content is unhelpful ('[domain] domain.update (POST)').

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 complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'domain' represents in this system, what the update affects, what the expected outcome is, or how to interpret parameters. With no output schema and 0% parameter documentation coverage, the description should provide much more context to help an agent use this tool 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%, meaning none of the 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and basic types without explaining what they mean, how they interact, or what values are appropriate. For example, it doesn't explain what 'certificateType' controls, what 'domainId' refers to, or how 'host' relates to the domain being updated. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 is essentially a tautology - it restates the tool name 'domain.update' and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (a domain configuration), what system it operates in, or what the update entails. The description fails to provide meaningful purpose beyond what's already in 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 are no usage guidelines whatsoever. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'dokploy_domain_create', 'dokploy_domain_delete', or 'dokploy_domain_validateDomain'. An agent would have no guidance on when this update operation is appropriate versus alternatives.

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