Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, and open-world, which provides basic behavioral traits. The description adds no context beyond this, such as what specific updates are allowed, side effects, or error conditions. However, it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar with annotations present but 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 under-specified, not concise. It wastes space on a redundant header and a bare parameter list without explanatory text. A single sentence explaining the tool's purpose would be more effective. The structure is poor as it lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement.

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 (15 parameters, 4 required), no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool updates, the expected input formats, or the return value. Annotations provide some behavioral context, but the description fails to address the tool's role in the system or its interactions with siblings.

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 description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only lists parameter names and types without any semantics, such as what 'giteaId' refers to or how 'expiresAt' is formatted. This fails to add meaningful context beyond the schema, leaving 15 parameters largely unexplained.

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 merely restates the tool name as '[gitea] gitea.update (POST)' and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It fails to specify the action (e.g., updates a Gitea provider configuration) or the resource being modified, making it a tautology of the name/title. No differentiation from siblings like 'dokploy_gitea_create' or 'dokploy_gitea_one' is provided.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when updating vs. creating a Gitea provider), or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'dokploy_gitea_create' and 'dokploy_gitea_one' exist, but no comparison is made, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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