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 parameters). The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations—it doesn't explain what 'update' means operationally, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. However, it doesn't 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 brief but poorly structured—it's essentially a parameter list formatted as text rather than a coherent explanation. While not verbose, it wastes space on redundant information (parameter names already in schema) instead of providing meaningful content. The structure doesn't front-load key information about the tool's purpose.

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 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that only cover basic hints, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool updates, what the parameters mean, what the expected outcome is, or how it fits into the broader system (e.g., Dokploy's GitLab integration). For a mutation tool with many parameters, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to understand and use it 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 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining their purpose (e.g., what 'gitlabId' represents, what 'gitlabInternalUrl' is for, or how 'secret' is used). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 restates the tool name ('gitlab.update') and lists parameters without explaining what the tool actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being updated (e.g., a GitLab provider configuration) or what the update operation entails. This is essentially a tautology that provides no meaningful purpose statement beyond what's 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 is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this update should be performed, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'dokploy_gitlab_create' or 'dokploy_gitlab_one'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation scenarios.

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