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=false (non-idempotent), and openWorldHint=true (open-world). The description doesn't contradict these but adds minimal behavioral context - it mentions it's a POST operation, implying creation. However, it lacks details on what gets duplicated (e.g., settings, resources), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome is. With annotations covering safety, a 3 reflects some value from the HTTP method hint but insufficient behavioral depth.

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, structured as a brief header followed by a parameter list. However, it's overly terse - the header is cryptic ('[environment] environment.duplicate'), and the parameter list lacks explanatory value. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 this is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false) with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no behavioral details in the description, it's incomplete. The agent lacks understanding of what the tool does beyond 'duplicate', what parameters mean, what the result looks like, or how it differs from other environment tools. Annotations help but don't compensate for the sparse description.

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 parameters (environmentId, name, description) but only adds basic type/requirement info already in the schema. It doesn't explain what environmentId refers to (e.g., ID of source environment), what name/description apply to (the duplicate), or any constraints (e.g., name uniqueness). For 3 parameters with zero schema coverage, this minimal info is inadequate.

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.duplicate (POST)' which is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name with minimal clarification. It doesn't specify what 'duplicate' means operationally (creates a copy with new name/description? preserves settings?), nor does it distinguish from sibling environment tools like dokploy_environment_create or dokploy_environment_update. The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb.

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 is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing environment), use cases (e.g., cloning configurations), or exclusions. With many sibling tools for environment management, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate context.

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