Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide useful information (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain what 'rebuild' entails operationally - whether it recreates containers, resets data, reconfigures settings, or causes downtime. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, and the POST method hint suggests a mutation operation consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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?

While technically concise, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The two-line format with bracketed category and HTTP method is structured but fails to convey meaningful information. Every sentence should earn its place, and this description doesn't provide enough value to justify even its minimal length.

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 mutation tool (POST) with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'rebuild' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, whether there are side effects, or what happens to existing data. Given the complexity implied by a database rebuild operation and the lack of output documentation, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 for the single required parameter 'mariadbId', the description provides no additional semantic information. It merely lists the parameter name without explaining what a mariadbId is, where to find it, what format it uses, or how it identifies the MariaDB resource to rebuild. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented beyond its existence.

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 '[mariadb] mariadb.rebuild (POST)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name and HTTP method without explaining what 'rebuild' actually does. It doesn't specify what resource is being rebuilt (database instance, container, configuration) or what the outcome is. While it mentions 'mariadb', it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like dokploy_mariadb_reload or dokploy_mariadb_deploy.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios for rebuilding, or what distinguishes this from other MariaDB operations like reload, restart, or redeploy. With multiple sibling tools for MariaDB management, this lack of differentiation is problematic.

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