Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description doesn't contradict these (it implies a write action with 'activate', consistent with readOnlyHint=false). However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—no details on what 'activate' entails (e.g., whether it enables features, starts a subscription), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with annotations, this is a baseline level of transparency.

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 redundant formatting ('[licenseKey] licenseKey.activate (POST)') and a basic parameter list without useful details. The structure doesn't front-load key information; it lacks a clear purpose statement upfront. While brief, it's inefficient due to missing essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome of activation (e.g., success response, error cases), how it interacts with other license tools, or system implications. Annotations provide some safety hints, but the description fails to add necessary context for effective use, especially for a parameter-heavy operation.

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. It only lists the parameter name ('licenseKey') without explaining its format (e.g., alphanumeric string, where to obtain it), purpose (e.g., a purchased key), or constraints (e.g., length, pattern). This adds little meaning beyond the schema's type and minLength, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 ('licenseKey.activate') and lists the parameter, which is tautological. It doesn't explain what 'activate' means in this context (e.g., enabling a license for use, registering it with the system). While it mentions the required parameter, it fails to provide a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_licenseKey_deactivate' or 'dokploy_licenseKey_validate'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid license key), when activation is required (e.g., after purchase, during setup), or what happens if the key is already active. With sibling tools like 'deactivate' and 'validate', there's no indication of how they relate, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.

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