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, not idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond this. It does not explain what 'changeStatus' entails (e.g., whether it triggers restarts, affects data, or has side effects), leaving gaps despite annotations covering basic safety. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 inefficiently structured, repeating information from the schema without adding context. It uses a parameter list format that duplicates schema details, wasting space that could be used for explanatory content. However, it is not overly verbose, keeping to essential but unhelpful elements.

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 (mutating database status), lack of output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage, parameter meanings, or behavioral outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly despite annotations providing some safety hints.

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, but it only lists parameter names and types without explaining their meaning. For example, it does not clarify what 'mariadbId' refers to (e.g., a database instance ID) or the implications of 'applicationStatus' values (e.g., what 'idle' vs 'running' means). This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 and title without adding meaningful clarification. It mentions 'mariadb.changeStatus (POST)' which echoes the name/title, and lists parameters that are already defined in the schema. It does not specify what 'changeStatus' actually does (e.g., update the operational state of a MariaDB instance), making it vague and tautological.

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. Sibling tools include dokploy_mariadb_start, dokploy_mariadb_stop, and dokploy_mariadb_update, which likely relate to MariaDB management, but the description does not differentiate this tool from them or provide any context for its application.

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