Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name 'deploy'. It does not explain what 'deploy' does (e.g., starts a database, applies configurations, or initiates a container), potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. With annotations covering basic hints, the description adds minimal value, scoring a baseline 3.

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 the tool name and including a parameter list that adds little value without context. It is front-loaded with '[mariadb] mariadb.deploy (POST)', but the subsequent parameter line is under-specified. While not verbose, it lacks meaningful content, making it mediocre in conciseness.

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 complexity of a deployment tool with no output schema, annotations provide basic hints but the description fails to explain what the tool does, its parameters, or expected outcomes. Sibling tools suggest this is part of a MariaDB management suite, but the description does not integrate this context. It is incomplete for guiding an agent in tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the description only lists 'mariadbId' as a required parameter without explaining its meaning (e.g., an ID of an existing MariaDB resource to deploy). It does not clarify format, source, or constraints. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation in the description, this falls below the baseline of 3 for low coverage.

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 ('mariadb.deploy') without adding meaningful context about what 'deploy' entails. It does not specify what resource is being deployed (e.g., a MariaDB database instance, container, or configuration) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_create' or 'dokploy_mariadb_start', which also involve MariaDB operations. This is a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a MariaDB resource must already exist via 'dokploy_mariadb_create'), differentiate from similar tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_start' or 'dokploy_mariadb_redeploy', or specify any context for deployment. This leaves the agent with no usage instructions.

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