Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which tell the agent this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation that may accept unknown parameters. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare. It doesn't mention what happens when fields are updated (e.g., whether changes are immediate, require redeployment, or affect running services), nor any permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, 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 a tautological line '[environment] environment.update (POST)' followed by a parameter list. While concise, it wastes the opening line on redundant information. The parameter list is formatted but lacks explanatory value. It's front-loaded with unhelpful content rather than purpose or usage.

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?

This is a mutation tool (update) with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and rich annotations. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics, provides no behavioral context beyond annotations, and offers no guidance on usage. For an environment update operation in a complex deployment system, the description leaves critical gaps about what can be updated, how updates propagate, and what the tool returns.

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 environmentId identifies, what name/description fields represent, what projectId does (changes project association?), or what env contains (environment variables? configuration?). For a tool with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this minimal listing 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.update (POST)' which is a tautology of the tool name and HTTP method, and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (environment settings, configuration, etc.) or what the update operation entails. The sibling tools include dokploy_environment_create, dokploy_environment_remove, and dokploy_environment_duplicate, but this description doesn't differentiate from them 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling environment tools (create, duplicate, remove, search, byProjectId, one) but no indication of when this update tool is appropriate versus creating a new environment or using other environment operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or use cases are mentioned.

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