Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key hints: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (safe), idempotentHint=true (repeatable), openWorldHint=true (flexible). The description adds that it's a POST operation, implying an update action, but doesn't disclose behavioral details beyond annotations, such as what 'enterprise features' entail, potential side effects, or authentication needs. With annotations covering core traits, the description adds minimal context, warranting a baseline score.

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 not optimally structured. It includes the tool path and HTTP method upfront, followed by a parameter list, which is clear but could be more informative. It avoids redundancy but under-specifies purpose and context, making it somewhat sparse rather than concise.

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 updates license settings (a mutation with potential system impact), annotations help but the description lacks critical context: no output schema exists, so return values are undocumented; it doesn't explain what enterprise features are or their implications; and sibling tools include related license key operations without differentiation. For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is incomplete.

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 lists 'enableEnterpriseFeatures' as a boolean optional parameter, which adds basic semantics (what the parameter controls). However, it doesn't explain what enabling/disabling does, default behavior if omitted, or any constraints (e.g., requires admin rights). With one parameter and low schema coverage, this partial info is insufficient for full understanding.

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 with minimal elaboration ('licenseKey.updateEnterpriseSettings'), which is tautological. It specifies the HTTP method (POST) and lists a parameter, but doesn't clearly articulate what the tool actually does (e.g., enabling/disabling enterprise features for a license key). The purpose is vague beyond 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid license key), related tools like 'dokploy_licenseKey_getEnterpriseSettings' for checking current settings, or any context for when enterprise features should be enabled/disabled. The agent receives no usage direction.

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