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 annotations (it doesn't claim read-only or idempotent behavior). However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - only the HTTP method 'POST' is mentioned. For a creation tool with 10 parameters, more behavioral details (like what happens on duplicate names, whether it triggers deployment, or authentication requirements) would be helpful.

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 technically concise (just two lines plus a parameter list), but this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. The structure with a parameter list is organized, but the core description '[mariadb] mariadb.create (POST)' is inadequate. Every sentence should earn its place, and the parameter list without explanations doesn't add sufficient value.

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?

For a complex database creation tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets created (a database instance? container? service?), what the return value might be, error conditions, or how this integrates with the broader Dokploy system. The annotations provide some behavioral hints, but the description fails to compensate for the significant documentation gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for explaining parameters. While it lists all 10 parameters with basic types, it provides no semantic meaning - no explanation of what 'environmentId' refers to, what format 'databasePassword' requires, what 'serverId' represents, or how 'dockerImage' affects the created database. The parameter list adds little value beyond what's already visible in the schema structure.

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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name ('mariadb.create') without explaining what it actually does. While it mentions 'POST' and lists parameters, it doesn't state the specific action (e.g., 'Creates a new MariaDB database instance in Dokploy'). The description fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_update' or 'dokploy_mysql_create'.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing environment), when not to use it, or what other tools might be relevant (like 'dokploy_mariadb_deploy' or 'dokploy_mariadb_update'). The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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