Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations provide some behavioral context (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds almost nothing beyond this. It doesn't explain what 'reload' actually does behaviorally - whether it causes downtime, affects connected applications, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. For a state-changing operation (readOnlyHint=false), the description should provide more context about the nature of the change, but it merely repeats the tool name.

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 (three lines including the parameter list), but this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified. The structure is basic with a tool reference and parameter listing, but it lacks meaningful content. While not verbose, it fails to provide the necessary information that would justify its brevity in a helpful way.

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 that this is a state-changing operation (readOnlyHint=false) with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what the result will be. For a tool that presumably performs some kind of reload/restart operation on a MariaDB instance, this level of documentation is inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 both parameters (mariadbId and appName), the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meaning. However, it only lists the parameter names without any semantic explanation. The agent doesn't know what mariadbId refers to (database instance ID, container ID, configuration ID?), what format it should have, or what appName represents (application name, service name, project name?). The description fails to 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 is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name ('mariadb.reload') and HTTP method (POST), providing no meaningful explanation of what the tool does. It doesn't specify what 'reload' means in this context (e.g., reload configuration, restart service, refresh connections) or what resource it acts upon beyond the generic 'mariadb' reference. While it distinguishes from some siblings by mentioning 'mariadb', it doesn't clearly differentiate from other mariadb tools like 'dokploy_mariadb_rebuild' or 'dokploy_mariadb_restart'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what problem this tool solves. With multiple sibling tools for mariadb management (changeStatus, rebuild, start, stop, etc.), the agent has no information about when a 'reload' operation is appropriate versus other state-changing operations.

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