Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what's in the annotations. For a creation tool, it doesn't mention what happens on duplicate names, whether there are permission requirements, rate limits, or what the response contains. 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 concise with no wasted words, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure shows the HTTP method and lists parameters, but the information is too sparse. It's front-loaded with the tool signature but lacks substantive 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 creation tool with 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic safety hints, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an environment is, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationships to other entities. The context signals indicate significant complexity that the description doesn't address.

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 no parameter descriptions. The description lists parameter names and types but adds no semantic meaning - it doesn't explain what 'name' represents, what format 'projectId' should be in, or what 'description' is used for. This provides basic structure but insufficient context for effective use.

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 states '[environment] environment.create (POST)' which is a tautology that restates the tool name and adds the HTTP method. It doesn't specify what an 'environment' is in this context or what 'create' actually does. The parameter list provides some hints but doesn't constitute a clear purpose statement.

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 guidelines about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include 'dokploy_environment_byProjectId', 'dokploy_environment_duplicate', 'dokploy_environment_one', 'dokploy_environment_remove', 'dokploy_environment_search', and 'dokploy_environment_update', but the description provides no differentiation or context about when this create operation is appropriate versus those other environment operations.

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