Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, open-world), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond what's in annotations. For a 'move' operation, critical details are missing: whether this causes downtime, what happens to data, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. With annotations covering only basic safety hints, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral 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 brief and structured with a parameter list, but it's under-specified rather than concise. The first line '[mariadb] mariadb.move (POST)' adds little value beyond the name/title. While not verbose, the description fails to communicate essential information efficiently.

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 this is a mutation tool (moving database instances) with no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and annotations that only provide basic hints, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'move' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that likely involves significant infrastructure changes, this is inadequate.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description merely lists parameter names and types without explaining what 'mariadbId' or 'targetEnvironmentId' represent, what format they should be in, or where to find valid values. This minimal information doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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.move') without explaining what 'move' means in this context. It lists parameters but doesn't state the actual purpose - whether it moves a MariaDB instance between environments, servers, or something else. This is essentially a tautology of the name/title.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_create', 'dokploy_mariadb_update', and other database move tools (e.g., 'dokploy_mysql_move', 'dokploy_mongo_move'), but the description offers no context about when moving is appropriate versus creating new instances or using other operations.

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