Dokploy MCP Server

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open-world. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it's a POST request, implying a mutation, but does not elaborate on effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges environment variables, or if it triggers redeployment). With annotations covering basic safety, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 clear header and parameter list. However, it includes redundant information (repeating the tool name) and lacks essential explanatory content. While concise, it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative.

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 tool has no output schema, annotations provide basic hints, and schema coverage is 0%, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose, parameter usage, or expected outcomes (e.g., success response or error handling). For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, 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 details. The description lists parameters ('mariadbId', 'env') but gives no semantic meaning (e.g., 'mariadbId' identifies the MariaDB instance, 'env' contains environment variables as key-value pairs). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving parameters poorly understood.

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.saveEnvironment') without adding meaningful clarification. It mentions 'POST' and lists parameters, but fails to specify what 'saveEnvironment' actually does (e.g., saves environment variables for a MariaDB instance). This is a tautology that provides no additional insight beyond 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or sibling tools (e.g., other 'saveEnvironment' tools for different databases like mongo or mysql). Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.

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